5 ms·
I don't recall this potential bombshell (maybe because it was shortly before a Christmas, and the NYT headline looked like just more of the same ol'): > And in
by neilv 3y ago
I don't recall this potential bombshell (maybe because it was shortly before a Christmas, and the NYT headline looked like just more of the same ol'):
> And in 2018, Facebook told Vox that it doesn't use private messages for ad targeting. But a few months later, The New York Times, citing "hundreds of pages of Facebook documents," reported that Facebook "gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages."
2018-12-18 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/report-facebook-let-companies-get-even-more-data-than-previously-known/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/report-facebook-...
2018-12-18 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...
- throwaway2990 3y ago[flagged]
- zer0zzz 3y agoCare to back that up with any citations, or should everyone just take it on faith that what a throwaway says isn’t made up?
- fnordpiglet 3y agoFacebook is organized as a for profit company.
- deprecative 3y agoAnyone expecting capitalism to not capitalism is going to have a bad time.
- gloryjulio 3y agoIt's both true and false. They don't do advertising with msg, and it's e2e encrypted. But they can use the metadata
- addandsubtract 3y agoYes... meta data
- dylan604 3y agoOMG, that's such an obvious word play that has such dire ramifications. FARK!!! I have to hand it to theZuck, this totally changes how I look at the name change
- _heimdall 3y agoIs metadata useful for ad targeting? If the claim is that they use the content of messages that's be one thing, but what kind of ad value is really pulled out of timestamps and phone numbers of who you messaged? That said, collection of metadata can still be a problem, I just don't see the ad value.
- dingnuts 3y agoYes it is useful. Knowing who you contacted and when tells advertisers demographic information and probably more that I can't think of
- _heimdall 3y agoWhat demographics can be gleamed from who and I contact and when? This is one of those times where I feel like I'm annoyingly peppering someone with questions, hopefully it doesn't come across that away. I really am curious what ad-related use case I may have missed with regards to metadata.
- tempest_ 3y agoIt is end to end encrypted but facebook controls both ends so... ?
- gloryjulio 3y agoThat's not how it works. They won't be able to see the messages themselves if it's e2e encrypted. You can say they are lying of course
- Veserv 3y agoCan you point out where in their contracts or privacy policy they have legally binding terms that irrevocably dismiss their right to give your messages to advertisers? If they have no intention to sell, then they have nothing to fear by putting it in writing with a appropriate liquidated damages clause. Otherwise it is quite suspicious why they reserve the right to do that in the contracts that they wrote.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoFacebook is on both ends of the e2e. e2e encryption means no from client to client can read your messages. Your client certainly can - and Facebook is the client. It would have no problem sending back signals on your messages (or the full message) to Facebook servers. Doesn't mean it's happening. But it's interesting that e2e encryption alone makes you positive it isn't.
- zer0zzz 3y agoAgreed, and that’s how it would work. I was more highlighting the throwaway with comment that had no context or link to sources.
- throwaway2990 3y agoThere’s been many stories over the years of people being advertised to from things mentioned in what’s meant to be a private conversation.
- zer0zzz 3y ago“People are saying…”
- throwaway2990 3y ago“People say trust Facebook because they control the e2e and I can’t imagine an attack vector”
- zer0zzz 3y agoSo much for those “many stories”
- throwaway2990 3y agolol I’m not going to try convince some nobody who thinks he’s safe cos Facebook makes a claim.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agoDownload a naughty gif/video from reddit and send it to someone on messenger. It will report you and say you are sending a naughty video and that multiple attempts will ban you. Fine for unencrypted chat. Send same on e2e chat. The video will say "not sent". Why is Facebook processing anything before being encrypted? The understanding is e2ee means content gets encrypted on device, sent to server in encrypted state and decrypted at other side. There is NO way Facebook should be able to analyze the contents of message, photo, video. .if they are doing this for csam/nudity, what stops them from using same tech for ad targeting and more seriously, for letting governments to spy on people?
- cute_boi 3y agoWell, how can anyone trust facebook and whatsapp? How can we be so sure that e2e is done properly without looking into source code.
- zer0zzz 3y agoThese are all a fair questions, but they’re still questions and not some confident assertion with absolutely no sources from a total throwaway account. That was my point.
- _heimdall 3y agoThe problem isn't whether Facebook used private messages for ad targeting (the claim they denied), its whether Facebook used private messages at all. Who cares if it was for ads, giving third party companies access should be a huge problem with or without ads.
- margorczynski 3y agoThis should make it a no-go for any sane person that is aware of that, unfortunately not many are. I always try to convince people I know to ditch Messanger/WA/etc. in favor of Signal, and in many cases I've succeeded.
- _heimdall 3y agoFor better or worse, I found that the people willing to keep Signal installed and up to date largely just to get in touch with me was a good proxy for the list of people that really matter most to me. I didn't win many over on the importance of privacy or Signal, but the willingness of some to put up with it because it matters to me says a lot about my relationship with them.
- rvba 3y agoWhat is good about signal? It does not allow unique account names (!), but uses telephone numbers - what is just absurdly bad security. The state can make a duplicate of your sim at any time. Not to mention linking phones to people is relatively easy.
- qilo 3y agoSignal introduced usernames about a month ago. https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/ https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/
- margorczynski 3y agoComplete E2E encryption, only you and the person that you're talking to can read the messages. Yes, having you be identified by phone number is not great but they introduced usernames recently.
- jgalt212 3y agothat's the money quote, for sure.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]