51–60 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never cared about Facebook using data collected from their platforms, but the whole "Collecting phone data because you agreed to the very wide permission system implemented in Android systems", is a bit sketchy.
Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't deliberately agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy.
Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.) Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year. It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, rig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't deliberately agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy.
Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't unconsciously agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy. Fixed that for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
Been seen as OK by whom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the surprise of many that this was used for political purposes in a way that significantly differs from the expected pattern (micro targeting vs generic political advertising)? I suspect most people on HN are aware of how naive much of the public are about the implications of technology.
> Isn't the surprise of many that this was used for political purposes in a way that significantly differs from the expected pattern (micro targeting vs generic political advertising)? Also not a surprise, it was well-known that the 2012 Obama campaign used targeted advertising and the media at the time raved about this brilliant use of an emerging technology. No one at the time saw fit to question them or Facebook.…
I'm not sure that's accurate either in the context of how the Trump campaign used this data and the investigation into the Trump campaign. The issue isn't that Trump used social media, it's how they used it and who they worked with (Roger Stone and the WikiLeaks/DNC hack angle for example).
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.
Almost every NDA, including those standard with employment packages, include in the definition of confidential information the time, date and duration of phone calls with customers and sensitive suppliers. Anyone in a customer-facing role would thus be required to keep those data confidential, i.e. not disclose it without proper authorization to a third party, e.g. Facebook.
Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.) Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year. It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, rig…
As a point of reference, if you're in the US or Canada, Facebook would be losing money on this model, according to info on their investors' site [0].
0 - https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q... (search for Average Revenue per User)
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.
> Continuously upload info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames, and your call and text history. This lets friends find each other on Facebook and helps us create a better experience for everyone.
https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/opt-in_scre...
Granted, those six words are tacked on the end of a sentence, and given the intrusiveness of the feature should probably have been called out in its own opt-in dialog with its own switch. But it's not like they asked for contact access and turned around and used it for something else.
If we consented to this and were still genuinely surprised, its an indication that the consent was not sufficiently informed. This is your problem, not ours. Most of us Average Joes just don't understand the scope of what data collection is possible when we give you access to our phone's features - especially when you couch the access request for quite innocuous and even helpful features.
Worse, we don't really understand what can be done with this data. That you can take location data and will use it to infer where we live and work - that you could use it to categorize us according to race and religion - these kinds of possibilities just never crossed our minds when you asked for our location to share with nearby friends.
So, no, we did not agree to this - we were not well enough informed to agree with this. To paraphrase a meme: You might be legally correct, but you're an asshole.
