8 ms·

> Are you accusing these developers of violating privacy? Yes, the app is downloading private user messages (ostensibly to show a modified messaging interface)

• chucklenorris 4y ago
  Proxying.. i don't think it means what you think it means. By that logic they should ban all of google's employees because chrome "proxies" information from facebook's servers (i.e. chrome shuffles private data from facebook's servers to user's eyeballs)
• denkmoon 4y ago
  Incredible re the missing privacy policy. Definitely not a group of people that should be responsible for anyone's private data.
• Dylan16807 4y ago
  An app downloading on behalf of the user isn't a privacy issue. Are their servers acting as a proxy? Whether that's a privacy issue depends on how they configure/limit/audit their servers.
  • xvector 4y ago
    That is a naive view. If/when the app devs go malicious, it will be Meta on the legal hook for users' "stolen data." The press and users will blame Meta, not the developers of this app, or the users that unwittingly handed over their data. The headlines will say "X million Facebook users' data leaked," or "X million Facebook users hacked." Meta is acting in an entirely reasonable manner for a company under such regulatory and press scrutiny.
    • Thorrez 4y ago
      Blocking the app from accessing Instagram is one thing. Permanently banning the Facebook accounts of all the employees is another.
    • josephcsible 4y ago
      Does Microsoft get blamed every time credentials get stolen from a Windows box? Why would this be any different?
      • cortesoft 4y ago
        If Microsoft provided a public API where you could download all the credentials for both the user and all their friends, then yes, Microsoft would be blamed.
      • stevewatson301 4y ago
        Because FB was blamed for the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which, at its core, was simply an issue of providing Oauth2 logins to third parties.
    • Dylan16807 4y ago
      That's a potential privacy violation. Distinguishing "it violates privacy" and "it could violate privacy if the code was changed" is not naive.
      • xvector 4y ago
        Are you seriously saying it should be Meta's job to continuously reverse engineer a third party client (that doesn't even have a privacy policy) to figure out if it violates users' privacy? That's absurd. Far more sensible to just ban it and call it a day.
        • Dylan16807 4y ago
          I didn't say that. What I said is that the two scenarios are very different. ipsum2 is accusing the devs of already violating privacy. Also their privacy policy is here: https://www.theogapp.com/privacy https://www.theogapp.com/privacy
  • likpok 4y ago
    An app downloading data on behalf of the user is basically what Cambridge Analytica was doing. The problem is that data ownership is complicated. If I know your phone number, can I share it with other people? That was CA (me downloading data about all my friends). Here the issue is private messages — is it okay for me to share the messages you sent privately to me? A lot of people will get quite upset if you do that!
    • josephcsible 4y ago
      If I send you something, you should be able to copy and distribute it as you see fit, no matter what I wish you would and wouldn't do with it, and my recourse should be limited to not sending you more things in the future.
      • kredd 4y ago
        What if you make me sign some sort of NDA/ToS?
        • josephcsible 4y ago
          To be clear, I'm not saying that there should be no consequences if you distribute a message that I didn't want you to. I'm just saying that I shouldn't be able to stop you from doing so. If you signed a contract saying you wouldn't, and then you do, I should still be able to sue for that, but the existence of such a contract shouldn't let me control your technology to prevent you from breaking it in the first place.
          • joshuamorton 4y ago
            I'm confused, what's the point of the contract that says "you can't do this" if not to legally enforce that you can't do that?
            • josephcsible 4y ago
              I'm distinguishing between two different meanings of "can't": not allowed vs. not capable. You should be capable of violating NDA/ToS's, but possibly suffer legal consequences if you choose to do so.
  • bagels 4y ago
    The FTC consent decree disagrees with this take.
  • cortesoft 4y ago
    How is Facebook supposed to know how they configure/limit/audit their servers? Are they just supposed to take their word for it? Cambridge Analytica said they weren't abusing their access, too.
  • phendrenad2 4y ago
    Someone didn't read the GDPR...
• daxuak 4y ago
  On my old-ish laptop the website managed to lag like the browser tab is running at 15fps, impressive...
• rtldg 4y ago
  The privacy policy link being broken is definitely unfortunate. Anyway, here's the page it is supposed to link to https://www.theogapp.com/privacy https://www.theogapp.com/privacy
  • dcdc123 4y ago
    It’s not broken, it opens in a new tab. Your browser or adblocker is probably breaking it.
• barbariangrunge 4y ago
  > Yes, the app is downloading private user messages (ostensibly to show a modified messaging interface) and private photos, according to their feature list. In 100 years, I wonder how we will look back at our generation tried to wrap its head around how digital information works. The implications are mind mending and we've been figuring it out our whole lives, with new aspects appearing regularly. People like my grandparents couldn't ever download a conversation and share it, not in the same way
• amatecha 4y ago
  What evidence do you have that this application was acting as a "proxy" where the developers can "intercept and see all data"? That's a pretty big claim to make without providing any supporting evidence.
  • ummonk 4y ago
    That’s how any third party interface works. It’s a proxy that ostensibly just formats and displays the data to the user but there is no way to guarantee they don’t upload it to their own servers or something, as Cambridge Analytica did (which got Facebook in trouble)
    • Dylan16807 4y ago
      You have a strange definition of proxy. That would make the official app a proxy too, wouldn't it?
    • amatecha 4y ago
      There is in fact a way to verify whether the application sends the data elsewhere.. The most basic of network monitoring tools will immediately indicate what external hosts are being communicated with. If all the network activity is strictly with Instagram's servers, it's plainly clear that the app dev is not siphoning off user data. So, this is why I ask. It's actually really easy to find out what network hosts a piece of software is interacting with. If the dev really is stealing user data, it should be trivial to prove. This is the evidence I am asking for, otherwise that person's claims are completely baseless speculation.
      • ummonk 4y ago
        Meta doesn’t have the ability to monitor its users’ computers to see if any of them end up having data sent to a server.
        • amatecha 4y ago
          Again, I'm asking _the person in the thread above_ who made these claims that the app is stealing user data to provide any supporting evidence, perhaps via the methods I described in my last comment. I'm not talking about Meta.
• dcdc123 4y ago
  > Their website doesn't even have a privacy policy, just a dummy link That’s not true at all. They have a privacy policy linked at the bottom of their page. It opens in a new tab by default which is probably blocked by our adblocker.
  • ipsum2 4y ago
    According to the source code, the link is broken for desktop (class="footer_component desktop"), but not mobile (class="footer_component mobile"). <a href="#" class="footer-link">Privacy Policy</a> is a non-functional link.
    • bloody-crow 4y ago
      Probably has some javascript handler or something?
      • omegabravo 4y ago
        it was easy to test by turning off the adblock and it definitely doesn't work.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • 29083011397778 4y ago
          I just checked in Firefox on desktop - and their privacy policy links to a real page. I thought maybe it was recent, so I checked on the Internet Archive as well. Nope, it's been there since at least September. Are they doing something weird and non-standard that may not work everywhere? Quite possibly. Is it a dummy link that goes nowhere, per your claim? Absolutely not.
• jjulius 4y ago
  >Yes... Do you have evidence of this? An example of network traffic indicating that the app is communicating with something other than Meta, perhaps?
  • cortesoft 4y ago
    How is Meta supposed to verify this? And verify that they don't start behaving badly in the future? This is what got Facebook in trouble with the FTC... they allowed developers access to all the users data without oversight. They are required by their settlement to not just trust app devs that they won't abuse the data.
    • jjulius 4y ago
      That's not what I am asking. GP said that this third-party app is violating user privacy, and I am asking for evidence of that. As of now, there's nothing to suggest that the app is doing more than we're led to believe they are. CA went beyond what they claimed they were doing. That said, while I don't disagree with the point you're making, I disagree with the approach. There's a difference between recognizing that the market is interested in the approach the third-party app is taking and working with them to figure out how to move forward together, and nuking from orbit the unconnected personal accounts of everyone tied to the app on LinkedIn.
      • cortesoft 4y ago
        Is Meta obligated to work with anyone who wants to? Are they required to dedicate resources to every company that approaches them wanting to partner?
        • jjulius 4y ago
          Nope, they sure aren't! Just as they're not obligated to nuke all of the personal accounts for everyone who works for the third-party app. Not being obligated to do something doesn't mean that one is excluded from looking like an asshole if they don't do that thing.