121–130 of 194 posts
About an year ago, when the story blew up about the Facebook app sneaking through your phone contacts and adding friends numbers' to your Facebook account. I instantly deleted the Facebook app from my Android, and told my friends Facebook was clearly not reliable to have an app privilege on your phone. I called it that they would eventually do even worse, if you let them have an app in your phone. The general consens…
About an year ago, when the story blew up about the Facebook app sneaking through your phone contacts and adding friends numbers' to your Facebook account. I instantly deleted the Facebook app from my Android, and told my friends Facebook was clearly not reliable to have an app privilege on your phone. I called it that they would eventually do even worse, if you let them have an app in your phone. The general consens…
For example, on iOS, it looked like this almost two years back: http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/iPhoneNumber.png (as seen on this page from October 2010: http://www.marismith.com/facebook-phonebook-how-safe-your-ce...) I don't have any old screenshots of the Android version, but the current app is similar to the iOS screenshots above.
Value of Zuck's shares post-IPO: $19 Billion
Pissing off 800 million users with a forced email change: PRICELESS
There are some things money can't buy. For gut-wrenching invasion of privacy there's Facebook.
It's even more sad FB is using it (the fact that all of my friends are on FB and hence I wouldn't switch) to take undue advantage in a way that I would not permit had they asked me.
Facebook simply doesn't have an ethical central core. They've shown over and over that when user privacy or security conflict with facebook's goals, they'll choose facebook over the user. It's always relatively subtle; they strive to only do what they can get away with...but it's always pushing the line, and is never based on trying to do what's right, merely avoiding backlash. Facebook, the company, is kind of a soc…
I mean the advertisers.
Facebook simply doesn't have an ethical central core. They've shown over and over that when user privacy or security conflict with facebook's goals, they'll choose facebook over the user. It's always relatively subtle; they strive to only do what they can get away with...but it's always pushing the line, and is never based on trying to do what's right, merely avoiding backlash. Facebook, the company, is kind of a soc…
The "don't be evil" moment will be when people really start pulling the plug en masse. I mean the advertisers.
Facebook simply doesn't have an ethical central core. They've shown over and over that when user privacy or security conflict with facebook's goals, they'll choose facebook over the user. It's always relatively subtle; they strive to only do what they can get away with...but it's always pushing the line, and is never based on trying to do what's right, merely avoiding backlash. Facebook, the company, is kind of a soc…
I've sent several emails to my Facebook email address just for shits and giggles. I've never gotten a single one to go through.
You probably already know this but just to confirm, emails dont show up in messages. Instead they go to 'other' in messages, which no one checks anyways.
Facebook simply doesn't have an ethical central core. They've shown over and over that when user privacy or security conflict with facebook's goals, they'll choose facebook over the user. It's always relatively subtle; they strive to only do what they can get away with...but it's always pushing the line, and is never based on trying to do what's right, merely avoiding backlash. Facebook, the company, is kind of a soc…
Can you elaborate on why you think in this specific case user privacy or security conflict with Facebook's goals?
Facebook wants access to your email so badly that they're willing to steal it. This is, in my opinion, among the worst things they've ever done for user privacy (and security, but mostly privacy in this case), in a long list of subtle, and not-so-subtle tactics.
It also has very real security consequences. The automatic contact list updates for potentially millions of users means that sensitive information is likely flowing into facebook servers as we speak, without users knowing it. Passwords, medical information, company secrets, who knows what else? Someone who trusts facebook enough to use it for social interactions might not trust them enough to know about their medical conditions, proprietary company data, passwords for other sites, etc. Facebook took away that privilege for many people with this change.
All that said, here's what's important: This does nothing good for users, and a few bad things. The fact that facebook made this change, knowing that the vast majority of users were not interested in using facebook email thus far, tells us that facebook thinks first of facebook. Even if there were no privacy or security concerns, what the user wants wasn't even in the equation, when facebook did the math on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'd have to show they accepted the email, then chose not to deliver it to the user. I think this is just incompetence. hopefully, it's coupled with a little incontinence.
But the thing is they're not supposed to get the email at all. The user goes into their contact book and selects the person they want to email, and suddenly Facebook is getting the email instead of it being sent to the person's actual email address.
