Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 266 posts

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#251

Post by Natfan »

zwegner wrote: post #47
konspence wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Have you tried it? It doesn't really work. I can't even figure out how to use it from my mobile device without installing an app.

You can still use messaging on the basic mobile site, https://mbasic.facebook.com , which doesn't even need Javascript.

Unfortunately, that's not my experience.

Going to https://mbasic.facebook.com/messages gets me the following:

> Your Page's Inbox is not currently available in the > Facebook app or mobile web browsers. You can access > your messages through a desktop browser, or by > downloading Facebook Business Suite or Messenger > from the app store.

In one comment on HN[0], a user suggested:

> You may need to access the page by clicking a link > from another mbasic page in order to have some kind > of checksum in the URL.

Another user replied that they were able to get access to the page with that method[1], but I haven't been able to replicate it.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402316 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402354

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#252

Post by fsociety »

zepto wrote: post #247
thebean11 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can trivially check this yourself. I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. > No. If the app were sideloaded, Facebook would just implement a fingerprinting solution or provide their own identifier, and ignore Apple’s mechanism. You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism and maliciously opened your photos to read metadata? Or the one a few years…

> I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. You won’t find a ‘quote’, but it it’s trivial to educate yourself on this mechanism. E.g. Apple’s documentation. Various articles about ad tracking transparency, etc. If you haven’t read the technical materials about the subject, why do you claim to understand it? > You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism…

You come off as making an ad hominem attack, saying that this information is trivial and if the replier can’t find it then they shouldn’t be commenting on the subject. If it is true that iOS’s permission model is done on the App Store level and not the OS level, which I doubt by the way, then that is a flaw on Apple’s part and should be fixed. Otherwise we are relying on arbitrary App Store rules to protect our privacy and security, instead of baked in constructs in the OS. I’m skeptical that Apple would do something so shortsighted.

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#253

Post by zepto »

thebean11 wrote: post #249
zepto wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. You won’t find a ‘quote’, but it it’s trivial to educate yourself on this mechanism. E.g. Apple’s documentation. Various articles about ad tracking transparency, etc. If you haven’t read the technical materials about the subject, why do you claim to understand it? > You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism…

So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment..

> So we agree that Facebook never actually said this?

Why would you think that?

Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times.

>Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment..

The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking.

It doesn’t, and you can check this in Apple’s docs.

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#254

Post by zepto »

fsociety wrote: post #252
zepto wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could not find any quote like this..not sure why you think it's so trivial to find. You won’t find a ‘quote’, but it it’s trivial to educate yourself on this mechanism. E.g. Apple’s documentation. Various articles about ad tracking transparency, etc. If you haven’t read the technical materials about the subject, why do you claim to understand it? > You mean like how they ignored Apples location sharing mechanism…

You come off as making an ad hominem attack, saying that this information is trivial and if the replier can’t find it then they shouldn’t be commenting on the subject. If it is true that iOS’s permission model is done on the App Store level and not the OS level, which I doubt by the way, then that is a flaw on Apple’s part and should be fixed. Otherwise we are relying on arbitrary App Store rules to protect our priva…

> You come off as making an ad hominem attack, saying that this information is trivial and if the replier can’t find it then they shouldn’t be commenting on the subject.

It’s not an ad hominem. The commenter made a false assertion about how the mechanism works, which is easily checked.

I’ve pointed to where they can check it. The App Store rules, and apples tech docs. There are also other articles with background.

> If it is true that iOS’s permission model is done on the App Store level and not the OS level, which I doubt by the way,

So you don’t know how this works.

> then that is a flaw on Apple’s part and should be fixed. Otherwise we are relying on arbitrary App Store rules to protect our privacy and security,

That’s exactly what many of the App Store rules are for.

> instead of baked in constructs in the OS.

They don’t rely on the App Store rules ‘instead’. They rely on them in conjunction.

It’s not as easy as you think to rely on baked in constructs in the OS.

A trivial example is that such constructs cannot detect text that lies to the user about why a permission is granted.

Another example is that such constructs can’t prevent an app from communicating with a fingerprinting service or using a

These have to be done by policy.

> I’m skeptical that Apple would do something so shortsighted.

Not really sure what to make of this comment, since you don’t present an accurate model of what Apple is actually ‘doing’.

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#255

Post by fsociety »

jack_riminton wrote: post #70

With all of the complexity of tracking technology, protocols and data laws I'm wondering whether these findings are also revelations to FB. I'm not shilling for them but just wondering whether some of these results are a direct consequence of the nature of the systems rather than nefarious design

This is likely the truth, code blindly extracts metadata from the photos without being aware of the privacy permissions. Doesn’t excuse it but outlines that a developer can have good intent but bad outcomes.

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#256

Post by thebean11 »

zepto wrote: post #253
thebean11 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment..

> So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Why would you think that? Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. >Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment.. The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking. It doesn’t, and you can check thi…

> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would

> You can trivially check this yourself.

> You won’t find a ‘quote’

You're backpedalling and it's really unclear what you're talking about, leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something.

If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#257

Post by [deleted] »

thebean11 wrote: post #256
zepto wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Why would you think that? Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. >Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment.. The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking. It doesn’t, and you can check thi…

> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would > You can trivially check this yourself. > You won’t find a ‘quote’ You're backpedalling and it's really unclear what you're talking about, leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#258

Post by zepto »

thebean11 wrote: post #256
zepto wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So we agree that Facebook never actually said this? Why would you think that? Anyone following this would know that Facebook said this. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. >Not sure why you're referencing Apples docs for Facebooks supposed comment.. The reference to Apple’s docs is about the tracking mechanism which you wrongly claimed worked like location tracking. It doesn’t, and you can check thi…

> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would > You can trivially check this yourself. > You won’t find a ‘quote’ You're backpedalling and it's really unclear what you're talking about, leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something. If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?

>> because they (Facebook) have told us in public that they would

They have.

>> You can trivially check this yourself.

You can.

>> You won’t find a ‘quote’

You won’t find a ‘quote’ - that was your word. We’re talking about a technical and legal mechanism here. You will find documents. I’ve told you which ones.

> You're backpedalling

Clearly not.

> and it's really unclear what you're talking about,

That’s because you haven’t taken the steps needed to understand.

> leading me to assume you're making it up or misrepresenting something.

That’s and unfortunate and incorrect assumption. You can check but you choose not to.

Perhaps it’s not trivial for you to check this. Maybe you are unable to make sense of technical and legal documents for yourself. If so, I am sorry to have assumed that you could.

> If it's so trivial to find why can't you produce it?

I have told you where to look. It doesn’t seem like you want to. Perhaps you are unable.

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#259

Post by jack_riminton »

fsociety wrote: post #255
jack_riminton wrote: post #70

With all of the complexity of tracking technology, protocols and data laws I'm wondering whether these findings are also revelations to FB. I'm not shilling for them but just wondering whether some of these results are a direct consequence of the nature of the systems rather than nefarious design

This is likely the truth, code blindly extracts metadata from the photos without being aware of the privacy permissions. Doesn’t excuse it but outlines that a developer can have good intent but bad outcomes.

Exactly. FB have depleted any benefit-of-the-doubt but I never attribute to malice what can most accurately be explained by stupidity or complexity

Re: Facebook still ‘secretly’ tracks your iPhone

#260

Post by ekianjo »

soziawa wrote: post #122
ekianjo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Facebook does not have access to Whatsapp messages ? Would be very surprised if thats not the case.

Yes, they very publicly state that they do not have access and I have yet to see a reason to not believe them in that regard. All big Facebook data leaks and hacks have just exploited not very well known APIs or badly set privacy settings. But nothing that was secret.

> Yes, they very publicly state that they do not have access

Why do you believe them?

Post reply on HN