61–70 of 142 posts
Why is it surprising or even remotely controversial that an app that people explicitly authorized to access their messages (informed consent) then proceeded to access their messages? The app didn't have access to friends' messages, so I don't see what the issue is here, other than yet another clickbait headline.
Why is it even possible for an app to request your Facebook messages though?
Why is it surprising or even remotely controversial that an app that people explicitly authorized to access their messages (informed consent) then proceeded to access their messages? The app didn't have access to friends' messages, so I don't see what the issue is here, other than yet another clickbait headline.
I believe, a reasonable person, would expect the limits of the access grant to end with the purpose of the app (a quiz) and not extend any further.
Most contracts/agreements have limits and this one is implicit in the working of the app. It is in no way clear that the app is earning it's money by selling/manipulating the data you're giving access to.
Additionally, it's disingenuous to ignore that a subversive app will make up/add features in no way benefiting the end user but for the sole purpose of scraping messages.
Intent is important, for some of these apps it is clear the only intent was to harvest data en masse.
Yes the user agreed to grant some permissions so a quiz could be taken. It cannot and should not be ignored that the app developer purposefully did not disclose the true nature of the app. This wasn't an accident. They didn't trip and fall into the data. They made something appear benign when it was really cancerous.
What's scary is that Cambridge Analytica is probably only one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of companies that had access to this type of data from Facebook. This is just the one we know about.
Cambridge Analytica didn't pay to access this data. They got users to give it to them for free though Facebook's developer platform.
> A research company (GSR) licensed the data to us, which they legally obtained via a tool provided by Facebook. Hundreds of data firms have utilized Facebook data in a similar fashion.
[1] https://ca-commercial.com/news/time-facts-not-conjecture-say...
Why is it surprising or even remotely controversial that an app that people explicitly authorized to access their messages (informed consent) then proceeded to access their messages? The app didn't have access to friends' messages, so I don't see what the issue is here, other than yet another clickbait headline.
"Hey, buddy, can I stab you in the back?"
As if a total fucking retard would ever say no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By granting access to your messages, they are also implicitly gaining access to your friend's messages with you. All people should have an expectation of privacy that when they send a private message to someone, that someone does not have the right to disclose the conversation.
That expectation has never existed. If you share something private with someone else, it belongs to them now, and they can forward it to whoever they want regardless of the sharing medium. The system is based on trust, not some arbitrary security measures.
> "The court here has taken hold, embraced the challenge of the technology and caused the law to catch up with the technology, in line with Canadians' values," Lonsdale said. "Canadians can expect that their private, one-on-one communications with each other remain ones that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-texting-privac...
Why is it surprising or even remotely controversial that an app that people explicitly authorized to access their messages (informed consent) then proceeded to access their messages? The app didn't have access to friends' messages, so I don't see what the issue is here, other than yet another clickbait headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we have a private conversation, you shouldn't have the right to reproduce the contents of my contributions to the conversation.
You are the one who put it in their phone/inbox in the first place. You can argue about copyright laws or NDAs, but otherwise "private conversation" means nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By granting access to your messages, they are also implicitly gaining access to your friend's messages with you. All people should have an expectation of privacy that when they send a private message to someone, that someone does not have the right to disclose the conversation.
So you would also like to impose a ban on email forwarding then right? Because that means the person who received your message took it, and exposed it to others that you didn't authorize. I can tell you that at least in the US, legally, your position doesn't hold water. We're getting a little ridiculous here. There are valid complaints against Facebook in all of this - this just doesn't happen to be one of them.
The difference is that email forwarding is part of the RFCs and IETF standards that define email, e.g.:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
Why is it surprising or even remotely controversial that an app that people explicitly authorized to access their messages (informed consent) then proceeded to access their messages? The app didn't have access to friends' messages, so I don't see what the issue is here, other than yet another clickbait headline.
Why is it even possible for an app to request your Facebook messages though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why? Why would anyone set up an API access to PRIVATE messages. That's crazy :o
On one hand it's actually a fairly reasonable API. Imagine using third-party AIM clients a decade or more ago. Same kind of thing.