Live data from Hacker News

Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

techcrunch.com

11–20 of 143 posts

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#12
Such bullshit.

They definitely initialize the camera in the background. That is how you are able to simply swipe to your camera view and it is immediately active. Otherwise you would get a slight delay while the camera is initialised.

What they are calling a bug is that the user actually saw it it rendered to a view...

Have no doubt - this happens on ALL apps that dont have an apparent delay on switching to a camera view. That facebook are saying this is a bug that they have "fixed", rather than admitting that they intentionally initialize the camera in the background makes me concerned as to why they would want to hide that fact...

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#13
post #6
post #3

Good time to remind that Facebook has previously intentionally bypassed permission dialogs to gather data without user permission: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5433555/Note-by-C...

I also noticed they've started resetting the notification settings I set through the Android settings menu for Messenger. I didn't know this was supposed to be possible.

I think the developer can change the notification channel ID (which they use to group similar notifications and the user can disable a specific channel) and then you basically start with a channel without previous settings. You would have to disable all notifications for an app completely (not just a specific type) to prevent this for the future.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#14
post #11

> Facebook vice president of integrity Guy Rosen The same Guy Rosen who was the CEO of Onvao - the infamous data grab app that Facebook purchased.... yeah, that integrity guy...

WTF does a VP of integrity do? Have lunches with the VP of honesty?

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#15
post #11

> Facebook vice president of integrity Guy Rosen The same Guy Rosen who was the CEO of Onvao - the infamous data grab app that Facebook purchased.... yeah, that integrity guy...

WTF does a VP of integrity do? Have lunches with the VP of honesty?

They mostly just avoid talking to the VP of Truth.

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#16

Such bullshit. They definitely initialize the camera in the background. That is how you are able to simply swipe to your camera view and it is immediately active. Otherwise you would get a slight delay while the camera is initialised. What they are calling a bug is that the user actually saw it it rendered to a view... Have no doubt - this happens on ALL apps that dont have an apparent delay on switching to a camera…

This may be true...

Previous versions used to take an age to load up the camera screen/swipe action was blocked (assuming the initialising process). So looks like this may of been their attempt of fixing the UX

Re: Facebook says a bug caused its iPhone app’s inadvertent camera access

#18
I’ve long suspected this as the Facebook app in particular causes the phone to get hot around where the main camera module ic is located. It is also a battery drain. They appear to be doing this in collaboration with Apple as the battery usage for the camera does not increase despite the camera constantly being initiated while using the Facebook app.

I’ve also noticed that when certain ad platforms inject their code into Safari taboola/outbrain the same heating occurs. This would make sense as taboola and outbrain appear to be linked to Israeli intelligence.

I guess they not only don’t care about our privacy they also don’t care about our battery life / health of our devices either.

It sort of reminds me of how windows would spin up your HDD In the middle of the night and scan through your entire hard drive causing it to prematurely fail. All under the guise of windows update or whatever the cover was for what I consider criminal damage.

Post reply on HN