3 ms·

> “To be clear—we are using the PushKit VoIP API to deliver a world-class, private messaging experience, not for the purpose of collecting data." I think we mu

> “To be clear—we are using the PushKit VoIP API to deliver a world-class, private messaging experience, not for the purpose of collecting data." I think we must be at the point where it's arguably irresponsible journalism for The Information to broadcast a claim like that from Facebook without immediately pointing out the occasions in the past when identical claims about data collection have turned out to be barefaced lies. Not every reader is going to have that context when reading the article, and they need to be equipped with the appropriate skepticism. I'm not saying we need to dredge up the 90s any time Microsoft speaks publicly about open source. But the Facebook thing is an ongoing issue, and it hasn't been that long since their absolute worst abusive behavior, and there's been no change in management since then. I think it's reasonable that any quote from Facebook denying privacy abuses should be positively dripping with disclaimers. (By the way, I'm loving the articles from The Information when they hit HN. Quality content.)

ilikehurdles 7y ago
>not for the purpose of collecting data. That just sounds like skirting the fact that they likely are collecting data.
- ckosidows 7y ago
  Right. "Not our purpose" != "We aren't doing it"
SeanBoocock 7y ago
> "I think we must be at the point where it's arguably irresponsible journalism for The Information to broadcast a claim like that from Facebook without immediately pointing out the occasions in the past when identical claims about data collection have turned out to be barefaced lies." I am struggling to recall any unambiguous instances like you suggest, especially anything rising to the level of "barefaced lies". What would be the best examples? I agree that journalists should give sufficient context about Facebook's history around data and privacy, but I also expect anyone that is subscribing to The Information doesn't need it rehashed for them.
- shakna 7y ago
  The time they collected phone numbers for express reason of 2FA, and then began using them to lookup and connect contacts?
  - SeanBoocock 7y ago
    Do you have any links with contemporaneous public messaging from Facebook about that? I am curious because the OP made a strong claim: that Facebook deliberately and specifically misled the public; and that there have been so many instances of this exposed that any journalist who fails to cite them is negligent.
    - shakna 7y ago
      Gizmodo [0] did the original reporting on what I've mentioned, based on the work of Alan Mislove amongst others. Facebook's official statement when 2FA numbers started being made available for other purposes was: > “We outline the information we receive and use for ads in our data policy, and give people control over their ads experience including custom audiences, via their ad preferences,” said a spokesperson by email. “For more information about how to manage your preferences and the type of data we use to show people ads see this post.” They saw no reason to deny it. Any information handed to Facebook may be used for any purpose, even if it is not apparent to the user that they will exploit data given under one function for another unrelated function. As a sibling has pointed out with several sources - this isn't new behaviour for Facebook. [0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/09/facebook-is-giving-advertisers-access-to-your-shadow-contact-information/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/09/facebook-is-giving-advert... [1] https://mislove.org/publications/PII-PETS.pdf https://mislove.org/publications/PII-PETS.pdf
      - miracle2k 7y ago
        But a general collection of potentially unethical or unseemly behavior is not the thing that we are looking for. The claim was that Facebook is known to engage in that behavior while then also lying about it when questioned.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

>not for the purpose of collecting data. That just sounds like skirting the fact that they likely are collecting data.

ckosidows 7y ago
Right. "Not our purpose" != "We aren't doing it"

SeanBoocock 7y ago

> "I think we must be at the point where it's arguably irresponsible journalism for The Information to broadcast a claim like that from Facebook without immediately pointing out the occasions in the past when identical claims about data collection have turned out to be barefaced lies." I am struggling to recall any unambiguous instances like you suggest, especially anything rising to the level of "barefaced lies". What would be the best examples? I agree that journalists should give sufficient context about Facebook's history around data and privacy, but I also expect anyone that is subscribing to The Information doesn't need it rehashed for them.

shakna 7y ago
The time they collected phone numbers for express reason of 2FA, and then began using them to lookup and connect contacts?
- SeanBoocock 7y ago
  Do you have any links with contemporaneous public messaging from Facebook about that? I am curious because the OP made a strong claim: that Facebook deliberately and specifically misled the public; and that there have been so many instances of this exposed that any journalist who fails to cite them is negligent.
  - shakna 7y ago
    Gizmodo [0] did the original reporting on what I've mentioned, based on the work of Alan Mislove amongst others. Facebook's official statement when 2FA numbers started being made available for other purposes was: > “We outline the information we receive and use for ads in our data policy, and give people control over their ads experience including custom audiences, via their ad preferences,” said a spokesperson by email. “For more information about how to manage your preferences and the type of data we use to show people ads see this post.” They saw no reason to deny it. Any information handed to Facebook may be used for any purpose, even if it is not apparent to the user that they will exploit data given under one function for another unrelated function. As a sibling has pointed out with several sources - this isn't new behaviour for Facebook. [0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/09/facebook-is-giving-advertisers-access-to-your-shadow-contact-information/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/09/facebook-is-giving-advert... [1] https://mislove.org/publications/PII-PETS.pdf https://mislove.org/publications/PII-PETS.pdf
    - miracle2k 7y ago
      But a general collection of potentially unethical or unseemly behavior is not the thing that we are looking for. The claim was that Facebook is known to engage in that behavior while then also lying about it when questioned.