131–140 of 370 posts
Signed/Unsigned is only a stopgap, we need user friendly UX to control which app has access to what data and even within the same app, establish Chinese Walls between personal data access and networked code.
Could anyone here imagine if an application we installed on our computers did this? What if the twitter app went around my computer after asking for admin permissions to find all my contacts and messages from different programs just to beam up to facebook. Such a thing was considered a virus in my time.
I feel in a way very disturbed by all these news coming out. Not by their contents, I don't feel there's nothing new here, but by the way way they are written. Since when is it not known in the tech world that facebook's business model exists around the idea of making a piece of legal spyware. At least where I live it's unpolite to give someone's contacts to anyone without asking the person first. I don't see why is…
TANSTAAFL. If you don’t pay with money, you’re paying with something else. Facebook is not a charity. The question is not whether they’re allowed to obtain (non-monetary) payment for using their service, it’s whether it was (and is) clear what the price is.
What irks me is why non of these services allow monetary payment. Why can’t I pay for facebook with the express agreement that none of my data is sold? It wouldn’t have mass market appeal, but it would silence many of the critics. (Same deal for all ad-funded platforms: just let me pay with money instead of time or attention.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dark pattern like this one needs to be hammered down by law. We should consider the most prominent button as "default" and such a form as an "opt-out".
Is this really a dark pattern? The text is right there. It's not convoluted legalese, it's extremely straightforward. If people aren't willing to read that, how exactly are you supposed to get anyone's consent for anything?
All of this is clearly made to get people to opt-in. Heck, it is not even clear that the "not now" option is clickable.
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata. If one party (i.e. Me) opted out, and someone else didn't, they now have a log that I didn't give them permission to make.
I think this is probably the most strong case users will have against Facebook, and I honestly think it's a pretty damned good one, but IANAL, YMMV, etc.
Either way, if you're still using the Facebook app after this has come to light... you're probably setting yourself up for a world of pain. Even if you don't delete Facebook outright, the risks of having their terribly coded app on your phone vastly outweigh the benefits at this point (you know, if you didn't delete it when people realized it decreased their battery life by 10-20%, or that it asked for every permission Android had an option for, with no way to tell Android to restrict access back-in-the-day...)
So I downloaded my facebook data a few days ago and there were no phone nrs in there, no call history, actually much less of everything than I thought they'd have. Are they lying to me or does this depend on other factors?
I’d argue the data arcchive one can download are incomplete. One, it’s missing Likes. Second, I never put my phone number in Facebook, but I know they have it, because at one time, it was pre-filled in the enable account recovery by phone -dialog. So what you can export isn’t the full story. The question however is: how do you prove that and really ask for ALL data they have on you?
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
> Even though legally they are in the right Even that is dubious. Law is interpreted by judges for this exact reason: people pushing it to extremes.
The legal system (at least in US and EU) needs to catch up to this, but it does. In the EU, the GDPR [0] will require "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject", which is a lot more than Facebook's claim of having "permission". We will see how judges interpret that.
I remember working on integrating facebook with an app I was working on several years ago. It was in the pre-M days, so Android was still using the old install time permission system. As soon as facebook would be installed without even running the app, it would access the contact database and do network operations (very probably uploads .. ). For this reasons, well among many others, I never installed the facebook ap…