171–180 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First thing to do on an Android is to go under settings/apps/All and disable the privacy parasites such as the facebook apps(4) and google+.
Anyone knows if the preinstalled FB application sends anything to FB even if you've never used it?
When you install the Facebook app on your phone it requires permission to read your contacts, call log, location, accounts, and application data. Is this true?
Good thing deleting the pre-installed Facebook application (if it's ever been used at all it was inadvertently) off of my Android phone is quick and easy, and doesn't require root access! EDIT: This is why we need sarcasm tags. No, I have not actually been able to remove my Facebook application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use iOS, and don't use Facebook, but you can't selectively disallow Facebook access to things like the address book? It's all or nothing?
It's all or nothing, that's correct. Either you install it and accept it's access conditions or don't install it. A popular mod for Android (CyanogenMod) has an extension to the OS that has a toggle button to block any elected app from accessing personally identifiable information, this includes sending the app (say Facebook) an empty address book when asked, and fake details like IMEI, GPS location etc. It should be…
When you install the Facebook app on your phone it requires permission to read your contacts, call log, location, accounts, and application data. Is this true?
Good thing deleting the pre-installed Facebook application (if it's ever been used at all it was inadvertently) off of my Android phone is quick and easy, and doesn't require root access! EDIT: This is why we need sarcasm tags. No, I have not actually been able to remove my Facebook application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is creepy. To be fair that 80% metric is something that Facebook has "measured" and told you, and is probably gear to coax people into finishing things that are unfinished. Some smart social engineering.
Oh no... 80% is my own estimate. I even had pictures of me in the gallery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be easy when editing the tag for the server to say "Does this name match this user in the imported contact list? Yes? Ok, it's most likely that person then."
I have a lot of noise in my contacts list though. Very rarely do I have a surname, mostly it's suffixed with "home", "mbl" or "work" or even city name as surname sometimes. I'm sure a "best guess" would be possible, I'm not sure of anyone that religiously stores first/last name aside from pure business contacts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd argue that they're largely ignorant of what it means to grant something like Facebook access to your phone (contacts etc). Being ignorant of how information you've divulged to people is used, does not make that information private.
You're right that if a friend shares personal information we would rather be kept generally private, our friend is responsible for the privacy breach. But the person they share with can also be guilty. Using a binary distinction (private/non-private) for privacy is unhelpful; it is more complicated than that. Things can be semi-private. Privacy is, more than anything, a matter of expectation. This means, among other…
The privacy "breach" in the article was a bug, not any sort of intentional exposure by Facebook.
Facebook even addresses specifically what they do with emails collected: https://www.facebook.com/help/241275309301947/
I guess I don't understand what you think Facebook should be doing, instead? Do you think they have to specifically disclose every internal use of the information they collect prior to collecting it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no... 80% is my own estimate. I even had pictures of me in the gallery.
How did they do this? Facial recognition? Did you create a profile, upload one picture, and they said "these might also be you?" How did it work?
I wouldn't really know how else it would happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that if a friend shares personal information we would rather be kept generally private, our friend is responsible for the privacy breach. But the person they share with can also be guilty. Using a binary distinction (private/non-private) for privacy is unhelpful; it is more complicated than that. Things can be semi-private. Privacy is, more than anything, a matter of expectation. This means, among other…
I agree with you up to the point about Facebook violating privacy expectations. I've been a Facebook user for 4 or 5 years and have never felt they violated any expectation of what I set to be private. The privacy "breach" in the article was a bug, not any sort of intentional exposure by Facebook. Facebook even addresses specifically what they do with emails collected: https://www.facebook.com/help/241275309301947/ I…
For me the issue lies in how Facebook communicates. (Fair disclosure, it's been a long time since I signed up and what they say to get you to share your e-mail contacts may have changed). The relevant section of the article for me is this one:
"When someone “connects” to Facebook using their Gmail, Yahoo, Twitter, Outlook or whatever account, Facebook will ask for permission to access your contacts to “find your friends on Facebook”. While Facebook may actually be trying to find their friend’s profiles on Facebook, Facebook is also harvesting all of that contact data and using it to create “shadow profiles” based on name and email address information. Ouch… And before you ask if Facebook notifies anyone about this process, apparently this page which is ambiguous at best is an attempt." [the "this page" referenced in the quote is the one you linked]
Fair disclosure: my reference for what Facebook should be doing comes from my own subjective personal expectations. These are probably different from yours. Fair enough :-)
I'm happy to agree that FB doesn't violate your privacy expectations :-)
"I guess I don't understand what you think Facebook should be doing, instead? Do you think they have to specifically disclose every internal use of the information they collect prior to collecting it?"
This is a great question, because it's genuinely complicated, and there's no one word answer that will suffice. That's the messiness of relationship...
Every use? No. Every significant use? Yes. For me, secret accounts are significant. What is happening here is an uncomplicated bait and switch. They promise one thing (friend population) and deliver another (friend population + creepy secret dossiers). Facebook has every ability to set the tone of the conversation and yet they oh-so-conveniently forget to ask to use the data for something that is really a big deal. Hiding something major in a help page is a scummy deceptive trick, and if any of my flesh and blood friends conveniently neglected to mention something major in this way I would be mad at them, too.
What Facebook should be doing is this:
FB: Can I import your contacts to populate your friend list?
Me: Sure, that'd be great! Thanks FB!
FB: Cool! Have a nice day!
FIN.
Or even this:
FB: Can I import your contacts to populate your friend list?
Me: Sure, that'd be great! Thanks FB!
FB: Great! Now that that's finished, can I use the same contacts to create shadow accounts for your friends in case they ever want to join?
Me: Umm... where's the link to delete my account?
What I want FB to do is either to not make secret profiles, or at the very least to ask me before they do. Here's the kicker: if they were honest and up front (honestly, who reads the help file?) about what they were doing, I would have said "NO", and they know it. And they went ahead and did it anyway, without asking.
Now, I can abandon my expectations as naive and just expect FB to do every single dastardly Jerk Thing they can possibly get away with, but I don't want to live in a world that cynical. I think this is why we were all so joyous when Google came out with "Don't be evil" and all so devastated when they broke that promise. I'd rather fight a little (even if it's just griping on HN) to recover a world where Jerk Things get called out as Jerk Things rather than give up entirely.
(edit) spacing on dialogue