Facebook iOS SDK Remotely Crashing Spotify, TikTok, Pinterest, Winno and More

Post by giantDinosaur » Thu, May 07, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #228

Nicksil wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. As you mention, this is something the software developer want, not necessarily the user . >You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). This argument may have some teeth if directed toward a user in our industry. Depending on the scope of the particular software in questio…

This very same argument would apply to, say, "5% of the price of my dinner goes towards healthcare for the waitstaff. That's something the company wants, not something I want." There are much better argument for it being spyware, e.g., that it spies. It's not a very strong argument that a thing is bad simply because it helps the provider of the thing.

Post by sbmthakur » Thu, May 07, 2020, 4:54 AM UTC

yllus wrote: post #36

For those wondering why the Facebook SDK is so widely used in popular mobile apps: Facebook Login is actually in the minority of reasons to add the Facebook SDK to your mobile app. The vast majority of apps will add the Facebook SDK because it contains Facebook App Ads; a library that "completes the circle" in terms of finding out how effectively the ads you ran on Facebook were at getting people to download, install…

Post by microtonal » Thu, May 07, 2020, 4:55 AM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #127

ethanbond wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah. I'm thankful for the opportunity, err... requirement to trade my privacy for others to have one fewer password to deal with. And of course for Facebook to have more personal data to munch on.

I'm not really sure what the problem is here. You are perfectly free to not use Spotify, or any other app that chooses to utilize Facebook login or other components of the Facebook SDK. Spotify made their choice to use the SDK for whatever gains they get out of it, and as a customer you can choose to not use their service or app if you disagree with that. There's even comments in this HN thread that point you on how…

Post by Nicksil » Thu, May 07, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #194

Nicksil wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's difficult to argue about whether it's "surreptitious." It's certainly no secret. I think this is why you need organizations (perhaps government or otherwise) to establish standards for what is and isn't acceptable, so we don't have to quibble over words like "surreptitiously." It is a secret, though. Outside of you, me, and a few other folks like ourselves, users of this software have no idea what's going on be…

I cannot easily see what information goes through an ASP form submitted with a ViewState parameter (where the page state is encoded in a blob buried in a JS var or HTML comment). Is that also surreptitious?

Post by omk » Thu, May 07, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

marmada wrote: post #165

Nicksil wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is that "spyware"? Yes, absolutely. It uses energy and bandwidth I paid for to surreptitiously transmit my information for use which will solely benefit Facebook and the software developer.

I feel like I'm in the minority here -- but I don't understand the problem. Software developers want to know whether their existing marketing methods are effective. The FB SDK helps with this. You always have the choice to not install the app (if you don't want to). This also helps developers make sure their marketing is effective and reaching the right people, which seems like a win-win to me.