41–50 of 82 posts
Many people use their personal phones for work calls. They may have inadvertently breached NDAs, and in some cases laws, by not paying attention to their privacy settings.
Many people use their personal phones for work calls. They may have inadvertently breached NDAs, and in some cases laws, by not paying attention to their privacy settings.
No offense but if you have an NDA that can be broken by using your personal phone you probably shouldn't use your personal phone to make those communications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an awful lot of people posting "we knew it was bad already, why do you care now?" Remarkably consistently across all articles relating to Facebook. Clearly you want nothing done about this and are happy with this low level of privacy. But on the other hand a lot of people have been unhappy with it for a long time; suddenly the dam has broken and the public discussion in the media is taking an interest. This h…
The "why now?" question has a simple answer: "because Trump". The public basically believes that Facebook enabled to Putin to get Trump elected. So suddenly the issue of all that data we've been sharing has gone from "I've got nothing to hide" to "This got that guy I hate elected" Whether or not that's accurate or informed is beside the point.
In the UK, the trigger issue is Brexit instead. The fake news long predates the internet - Boris Johnson built a career printing false articles about the EU in the Spectator, and the EU has long had a debunking site to deal with the UK press in general: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their very obvious consent form I haven't used FB in a long time and I never used their mobile app, so here's a genuine request: do you have a screenshot or some example of how they gather consent for this?
The Vanity Fair article about this featured a screenshot if you scroll down a little bit: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/25/facebook-denies-it-collect...
Personally, I'd prefer the message to be split in two parts, like so:
------
# Text anyone in your phone
This lets friends find each other on Facebook and helps us create a better experience for everyone.
## Privacy
This will continously upload:
- Info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames
- Your call and text history.
------
(I don't think I'd have gotten FB to a half-trillion market cap.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "why now?" question has a simple answer: "because Trump". The public basically believes that Facebook enabled to Putin to get Trump elected. So suddenly the issue of all that data we've been sharing has gone from "I've got nothing to hide" to "This got that guy I hate elected" Whether or not that's accurate or informed is beside the point.
True - both that that's why we're talking about it now, and that it seems extremely likely this is a contributory factor to Trump getting elected. Perhaps not directly or traceably, but through the huge spread of conspiracy garbage, inflammatory clickbait, and fake news. In the UK, the trigger issue is Brexit instead. The fake news long predates the internet - Boris Johnson built a career printing false articles abou…
Indeed although that's always been seen as OK because those are "our guys" manipulating public opinion vs. Putin being "the enemy" and getting Trump elected i.e. the tool (Facebook) is not under "our" / establishment control so Something Must be Done(TM)
Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)
So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?
People have been upset about this since Messenger came out. You can look up articles dating back to 2014 warning people about all the permissions Messenger uses. False assertions that people weren't upset before are getting old.
Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)
So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?
This might sound counter-intuitive at first glance, but nevertheless can make sense, legally speaking.
Let's begin with an extreme example: Say someone holds a gun to your head, and forces you to sign an unspecified agreement. In that case, undisputibly, it is all their fault, and you don't know what you agreed to. Clearly, this would not be legally binding.
Well, there are less extreme examples which also lead to results that are not legally binding. Sometimes, these are part of consumer protection laws. In some jurisdictions, these might even be part of common contract law.
Or, to use the best example: "agreements" of this sort will almost certainly be null and void under the GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True - both that that's why we're talking about it now, and that it seems extremely likely this is a contributory factor to Trump getting elected. Perhaps not directly or traceably, but through the huge spread of conspiracy garbage, inflammatory clickbait, and fake news. In the UK, the trigger issue is Brexit instead. The fake news long predates the internet - Boris Johnson built a career printing false articles abou…
> The fake news long predates the internet - Boris Johnson built a career printing false articles about the EU in the Spectator Indeed although that's always been seen as OK because those are "our guys" manipulating public opinion vs. Putin being "the enemy" and getting Trump elected i.e. the tool (Facebook) is not under "our" / establishment control so Something Must be Done(TM)
Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)
I would argue that consenting to allow Facebook to access your contacts is not consenting to allow Facebook to log your phone calls and SMS messages. Of course, some of the blame for that belongs with Google, for failing to accurately describe the permissions being given to apps.