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

Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 370 posts

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#331

Post by aylmao »

zzzeek wrote: post #281
kingofhdds wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in fact, airlines have regulations, because big flying objects loaded with fuel are kinda seriously dangerous, and can kill (not in un*x console meaning of the word) lots of people at once. Very unlike social platforms, to be fair. If regulations were introduced because of users not knowing what's good and beautiful, believe me, IT industry would be the most regulated thing in the world.

airplanes are kind of unlike banks and trading markets too yet those are also heavily regulated.

To be fair, banks and trading markets affect the economy directly, which is a primary concern of the government.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#332

Post by cwkoss »

anilakar wrote: post #83

I suspected this many years ago when familiar faces from our customers started to appear in the friend suggestion box. I've never installed the FB app on my phone, but our less privacy oriented customers probably have. What pisses me off is that while I can choose what information I share, I haven't given other people nor Facebook permission to read phone call logs that involve me.

Sales lead idea:

Make a facebook account and befriend all (and only) your competitors, market to the suggested friends.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#333

Post by mk89 »

adventured wrote: post #155
mk89 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until GDPR is here, then we might discuss about it. I really wonder how they will pass all those "privacy checks".

It doesn't matter. They have the money, people and time to throw at compliance. GDPR won't dent Facebook in the least. They'll bend where they have to, and no further. They'll pay occasional fines and that won't matter either. If you take it to an extreme and the only thing they can do is show non-personalized advertising and do zero tracking, they'll still print billions in profit in the EU market. That's what ownin…

Sometimes it's not about "oh I am gonna crush you financially" but "if you want to play, you need to play by the rules".

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#334

Post by mikeash »

ponderatul wrote: post #66

I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.

Of course we’re talking about different things. Facebook knows it and is confusing the issue intentionally. The last thing they want is a nuanced discussion of informed consent and how it relates to click-through alerts nobody ever reads.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#335

Post by cobbzilla »

randomsearch wrote: post #229
ams6110 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google+ were launching today, they might have a better chance. More people are interested in Facebook alternatives. At the time, Facebook had already supplanted MySpace and Google+ didn't offer anything attractive enough to switch again.

No point swapping Facebook for another advertising-driven social network in the same vein. If a company like Apple were running it and people were paying for it, that would be a different matter. Google have contributed to privacy issues, e.g. with poor permission management.

"If a company like Apple were running it and people were paying for it, that would be a different matter."

Oooh if only Apple did "social" apps well; they are famously not-so-great at doing them, I'm not sure where that comes from at root though.

Shooting from the hip: Maybe their intense internal secrecy translates into a worldview where the hyper-focus on the 1:1 relationship with their customer obscures their ability to see how their customers (and potential non-customers!) could interact; might even be dangerous.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#336

Post by superkuh »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #329
superkuh wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I didn't have to know because I never signed up for Facebook because it's obvious that centralization leads to perverse incentives. It's been obvious from the start but dismissed without consideration ala https://xkcd.com/743/

Yea, but as to the comic, man sometimes you really do just need to get some fucking work done. If I sent an openLibre document around to my company, well, that would be dumb.

That's reasonable. But it isn't reasonable to let your personal choices be dictated by where you work. I'm not saying use LibreOffice for work. I'm more saying that you shouldn't let your work define your opinions.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#337

Post by aylmao »

ponderatul wrote: post #66

I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.

> But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten.

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here too:

Isn't this an Android issue? I mean, Facebook is collecting the data, but they're asking for it like every other Android app does.

As an example, iOS used to just show a dialog that mentions an app wants to use your location, and it was later changed to:

1. a dialog that asks if it's ok to use your location while "you use the App" with,

2. a required blurb by the app that specifies how it's used, and

3. a separate dialog for when the usage of your location also applies "even when you are not using the app", with a clear option to instead grant the permission only if the app is running in the foreground.

iOS also warns you when you use a custom keyboard if the keyboard wants "full access". And clearly explains this means it can "transmit anything you type, including things you have previously typed with this keyboard", including "sensitive information such as your credit card numbers or street address".

I quoted directly from the dialog boxes because I think the wording is well crafted to make it very clear for non-savvy users. Android on the other hand literally just asks you if you want to use Messenger as your "SMS app". This tells nothing to the user, doesn't inform them what data can be accessed, what can be done with it (can it leave the phone?), nor gives the user any further options.

I know Facebook privacy is the hot-topic right now, but my problem with this is there's lots of other apps that can and probably have used these permissions too, and are probably storing this information. This is the opportunity to put Google under fire for their terrible Android permission system, which extends to random games asking for full phone access and a myriad of other sketchy things, but by focusing on Facebook this opportunity is being lost.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#338

Post by dredmorbius »

zodiac wrote: post #164
dredmorbius wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tools which become ubiquitous or prerequisites for other services are not discretionary. Facebook is the Internet for many people, is required for authenticating by numerous services, and is how numerous groups and communities organise. As such, its terms and services as those of numerous other services, should be defined in a standard set of obligations, rights, and responsibilities, by law.

> Tools which become ubiquitous or prerequisites for other services are not discretionary...As such, its terms and services as those of numerous other services, should be defined in a standard set of obligations, rights, and responsibilities, by law. I see this sentiment in some form a lot. Is there a name for this principle? Where does it come from? I don't in general agree with it - speaking generally, I think enfo…

Government.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#339

Post by kome »

def_true_false wrote: post #233
kome wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with Signal you still need a smartphone (i.e: very bad for privacy); while with telegram you don't. Also, with Telegram you can protect the account with a password, so you can use a burner phone, literally once, and then forget about it.

With Telegram you have no privacy - no one uses the e2ee (secret chats). Perhaps because the desktop client doesn't support the feature, and even if it did, secret chats wouldn't sync across devices.

it's not like the chats are in clear text, because they are not. They aren't encrypted e2e, but they are still encrypted.

Re: Facebook denies it collects call and SMS data from phones without permission

#340

Post by kodablah »

simplify wrote: post #330
kodablah wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant If that's true, solve that problem directly via education and enforcing transparency. There are also other solutions such as grants w/ stipulations, enforcement of existing fraud statutes, etc. Let's assume there are 3 segments of people here: 1) the ignorant, 2) the non-ignorant accepting, and the 3) non-ignorant unaccepting.…

> If that's true, solve that problem directly via education and enforcing transparency. This doesn't always apply. Should car regulations be abolished in favor of educating the ignorant?

Of course it doesn't always apply. Of course car regulations (or the aforementioned airline ones) have purpose. Not sure why this physical safety equivalency keeps coming up. You have to take each problem at its face instead of bending to analogies and what-ifs. We have to stop guessing and throwing legislative spaghetti at walls hoping it sticks. There are paths to arrive at legislation, but it's not the first brick in the path.
Post reply on HN