Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

nytimes.com

181–190 of 233 posts

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Because they're not third parties. Third parties are anyone off the street that meets some minimal requirements. It's like the distinction between third party and second party releases on video game consoles. Second party releases are extensions of the first party publisher because of the spec…

The user is the second party dude.

The user doesn’t manipulate the EM spectrum with his mind, but through user agent hardware, firmware, and software. The client stack necessarily has the same access he does.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#182
post #77
post #17

>The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014, spreading user data through tens of millions of mobile devices, game consoles, televisions and other systems outside Facebook’s direct control. So Facebook says "we don't sell data," but they are giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device. How is that not "selling" data? Just because…

IT's been obvious they do exactly that since the Zuckerberg hearings. But all of the politicians asking him questions seem to have missed that subtlety and kept asking about "selling data". Facebook hardly sells any data. It just shares it for free with a ton of partners (and without freely-given user consent).

Every instance of third parties accessing user data has been with user consent.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

similar to reprimanding someone on the spectrum for not saying hello Why hold anyone in the upper class accountable for their actions when we can just claim they all suffer from mental disorders and make excuses for them?

I might’ve been unclear, I do think we could push for more enforced accountability in these cases. The parallel between narrow focus and mental disorder was meant to illustrate how attributing these outcomes to malice (which I sometimes see) is ineffective. If those actors play by the rules and are immune to ethics-based arguments, then maybe the rules are due to be updated.

The comparison relies on an assumption that these corporate bad actors unwittingly "don't see the harm" that arises as a side effect of their laser focus on (non-maliciously) optimizing something else-- similar to how someone with a different behavioral orientation might unwittingly not register the effect of ignoring a common social convention.

I'd say this claim needs a lot of supporting evidence before we should take it seriously. At the moment it's just a rhetorical device, and would almost certainly be used to mitigate blame aimed at corporate bad actors. So I'd say without some type of serious evidence of this unwitting laser focus, evidence of people genuinely "not seeing the harm" despite huge op-eds in major newspapers, outrage from tech communities, harrowing stories of data privacy issues, etc. etc., we really should not put any weight on this "non-malicious focus" interpretation.

In other words, these are smart people. They knew full well what they were doing. Lobbying, PR, and attempting regulatory capture after the fact to launder their reputation and absolve blame are absolutely baked in as part of the strategy, until conclusively proven otherwise.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#184

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

> This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs." There's a great phrase for this: "move fast and break things". When you believe it is ok to break small rules and norms, it becomes easier to break larger norms and ethics and rules. This philosophy took SV by storm, but at its core it's always been about disregarding things like laws and ethics, and now we are seeing the world that created.

Huh. I always interpreted "move fast and break things" to be referring to the speed of development cycle, as in, SV startups prefer to we deploy new code without really testing everything as thoroughly as an enterprise company might, because time to market is most important and people are forgiving if we break their experience for a short time. I don't think anyone would really fault anyone for that interpretation.

However, if that becomes "do whatever we want to anyone without regards for laws or ethics or customs including directly lying to regulators" as it appears Facebook did then I agree it becomes a problem.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#185

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

> Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build unethical technology, while the competitors have a harder time doing the same.

While I absolutely agree that it's a serious problem, Facebook does not stand out in the business world in this regard. Many in the business world celebrate, rationalize, and embrace this point of view: Making money is all that matters. On HN, until recently I often read the argument that businesses' only responsibility is to make as much money as possible for shareholders and that they have no responsibilities to employees or community. The current U.S. administration openly embraces this view as policy; Rex Tillerson (former oil company CEO) openly stated that US policy was that human rights took a back seat to making money.

For generations, corporations have made money on the labor and the suffering of others, to the point of undermining governments and supporting oppression and murder. Off the top of my head: There was the East India Company in the 19th century, the banana companies in the early 20th century, the businesses that helped the Nazis, the ones who helped and cashed in on right-wing dictators throughout the Cold War, the financial companies who committed massive fraud causing a global recession in 2008, and all the IT companies helping oppressive states like China with their surveillance technology and means of oppression, not to mention Hollywood and other businesses who censor criticism of China.

The question is, why do we normalize and accept this behavior? What is wrong with the morality of business leaders?

(And to be clear, I'm not demonizing all business. Business provides the resources that make advanced nations prosperous, safe, healthy, and connected.)

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#186

This and the discussion here is obnoxiously bad. Facebook gave some device makers special APIs to access authorized data. This is literally no different than a web API or scraping facebook HTML, just more streamlined. What you guys seem to be objecting to is that non-facebook code was able to interact with authorized user data. But that is a necessary feature of displaying data of any kind (unless facebook owns the e…

No, you are wrong, this is a pretty egregious mistake. They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Yet they claimed they shut that stuff off to third parties (so they lied by omission). "No, we don't allow third parties anymore to do that kind of stuff" (but there's this large group that can do it, but we aren't calling them third partie…

So they basically relied on us not reading the small print. And we didn't. There should be laws against small print technicalities like that.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#187
post #42

Response from FB: "Why We Disagree with the NYT" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...

What I apprehended from the article is that those API's still exist, and even still work in full. Meaning that today it is still possible to generate an access_token using a client_id extracted from an old blackberry device with a valid facebook account and extract much more data (using the private device API's) than what that user should be allowed to see. Do I understand that correctly? Because that seems like an e…

Disagreement lies in there, fb says devices access as much as fb app access, NYT claims otherwise but probably wrong

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are wrong, this is a pretty egregious mistake. They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Yet they claimed they shut that stuff off to third parties (so they lied by omission). "No, we don't allow third parties anymore to do that kind of stuff" (but there's this large group that can do it, but we aren't calling them third partie…

>They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Because they're not third parties. Third parties are anyone off the street that meets some minimal requirements. It's like the distinction between third party and second party releases on video game consoles. Second party releases are extensions of the first party publisher because of the spec…

That's not what third parties means. Third parties means parties other than the service provider and the user.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#189

This and the discussion here is obnoxiously bad. Facebook gave some device makers special APIs to access authorized data. This is literally no different than a web API or scraping facebook HTML, just more streamlined. What you guys seem to be objecting to is that non-facebook code was able to interact with authorized user data. But that is a necessary feature of displaying data of any kind (unless facebook owns the e…

If the discussion here is bad, you definitely have played a role in making it so. Claiming people who disagree with your point of view are "deranged" is not constructive.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#190

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

Talking about ethics, this is going to sound below the belt. If Facebook were to enter into a contract with the defense department like Google did (and terminated a renewal just a few days ago), I doubt if any Facebook employees would even think of creating a petition to management or of quitting their jobs over that. Somehow I feel the people that Facebook attracts as employees may be the ones who don't care much fo…

To give benefit-of-the-doubt, I think they believe their own propaganda. Facebook folks actually believed that (e.g. among many) pushing people to reveal all aspects of their life equally to everyone was in society's best interest.

And I once met a Facebook employee who actually was a staunch EFF supporter…

But overall, I dunno… you're probably right.

Post reply on HN