Live data from Hacker News

I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

github.com

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#61
post #24

Facebook is actually a bit scary even with most of the things you're disabling here disabled. (My point is that this is cool, but it really isn't enough) For instance, I'm using facebook auth on http://lanmarks.com -- I wanted to be able to pull my users' facebook friends so that they could filter the data on my site to only their set of friends (this is one of the appealing parts of facebook auth, imho). I spent a b…

I signed up for airbnb using my facebook account and I noticed that they give away your DOB.

I immediately changed my DOB on facebook and vowed to avoid authenticating with apps.

I generally avoid putting in real information on facebook but the amount of stuff they give away is frightening. It's a heaven for social engineering and spear phishing.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#63
post #42

Well, it's a good idea, but it needs a big, fat "hey, this might/will probably break stuff in the app you're authorizing" button. Apps usually request that stuff for some reason, and the vast majority of users don't have enough understanding of the systems to know which permissions are safe to revoke. Best case, things silently break and the user doesn't care. Worse case, things break and the user blames the develope…

Apps usually request that stuff for some reason, and the vast majority of users don't have enough understanding of the systems to know which permissions are safe to revoke.

Breaking the app is the point of doing this. It's often not clear that, say, a FB app will post, as the user, to their own stream. I think most people don't want this, and want the app to break if it tries. You're thinking of "safety" from the perspective of perserving application behavior, not perserving user data and identity.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#64

I hate the security model where all the permissions are requested up front, and you have to approve them all (e.g. Android and Facebook without this plugin). All permissions should be off by default, and the user should be asked the first time a permission is needed to perform an action (a'la GPS on iphone) - at least that way you know what it wants the permission for, and the app can gracefully handle rejection.

And the application should gracefully handle rejections anyway, since users can and sometimes do turn permissions off after granting them.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#65

I hate the security model where all the permissions are requested up front, and you have to approve them all (e.g. Android and Facebook without this plugin). All permissions should be off by default, and the user should be asked the first time a permission is needed to perform an action (a'la GPS on iphone) - at least that way you know what it wants the permission for, and the app can gracefully handle rejection.

Android used to be a-la-carte but too much user confusion and developers not gracefully handling these things causing apps to crash. It had to be enabled as all-or-nothing kind of deal.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#66
post #49

I hate the security model where all the permissions are requested up front, and you have to approve them all (e.g. Android and Facebook without this plugin). All permissions should be off by default, and the user should be asked the first time a permission is needed to perform an action (a'la GPS on iphone) - at least that way you know what it wants the permission for, and the app can gracefully handle rejection.

This could be like early Windows firewalls all over again; popping up windows every time you try to do something, until you just disable it.

I think the idea would to be ask once when you the app tries to do something that requires a permission, and from then on the app would be granted that permission (unless you revoke it). In practice, this doesn't seem to be a nuisance on iOS.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#67
post #63
post #42

Well, it's a good idea, but it needs a big, fat "hey, this might/will probably break stuff in the app you're authorizing" button. Apps usually request that stuff for some reason, and the vast majority of users don't have enough understanding of the systems to know which permissions are safe to revoke. Best case, things silently break and the user doesn't care. Worse case, things break and the user blames the develope…

Apps usually request that stuff for some reason, and the vast majority of users don't have enough understanding of the systems to know which permissions are safe to revoke. Breaking the app is the point of doing this. It's often not clear that, say, a FB app will post, as the user, to their own stream. I think most people don't want this, and want the app to break if it tries. You're thinking of "safety" from the per…

You're absolutely right - the point is to break the app. This is great if the user breaks the apps in exactly the ways they want, but my point is that users rarely understand the scope of the app, and may (and likely will) end up revoking permissions that break functionality they want.

For example. I sign up with Foobar's Widgets with my Facebook account, and manually deny the "publish_stream" permission, because I just want to browse Foobar's widgets, and I don't want Foobar posting mean things about my mom on my stream behind my back.

Three weeks later, I come across a really boss widget, and see the "Share this widget with your friends on Facebook!" button. "Neat!", I think, and click the button. That fires off a job that gets stuck into a background queue (because doing external applications work in your web app directly is a recipe for self-DDOSing), and the worker pops the job, tries to run it, fails because the publish_stream permission is missing, logs the error, and closes the job.

I, the user, go to Facebook, expecting to see the widget there, but it's not there. I'll just assume it's lag. Things are slow sometimes. But it never shows up. I'm left with the assumption that it's Foobar's fault, for having a buggy "Share to Facebook" button.

The problem is that by putting permission revocation in the hands of the users without any documentation on what those permissions are used for, you leave it open to each user to assume what those permissions are used for. Imagination runs wild, the user freaks out and revokes the permission, things break, and people go home unhappy.

The case where this is absolutely needed is where an application is known to engage in some behavior that is undesirable, and you want to be able to prevent it from doing so. However, that's doable via the Facebook application permissions panel already, so I'm not sure that this is a big win. By placing it up front as a part of the authorization process, you're inviting people to break things in ways that they can't really see at the time of authorization.

I don't think the solution is "always trust the developer". There are bad developers out there writing abusive apps, and we need the tools to deal with them. The solution is also not "fully rely on the user to evaluate and grant/revoke permissions", because most users can't be bothered to read anything longer than your average tweet. Developers need better ways to tell people why they need permissions, and users need more powerful tools to cut out permissions that they know are resulting in abusive behaviors.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing to stop a Facebook app being built like this. In fact, Facebook recommends this approach. It's simply that many developers feel that it's easier to get all the permissions in one go, when the user first signs up.

Android, unfortunately does not have this functionality. All permissions have to be requested up front, whether or not they are needed for all users.

Cyanogen Mod, however, allows you to revoke permissions afterwards.

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#69
Chrome should integrate this into the Browser. That way, Google could "protect" you against "privacy violations" by Facebook. It could show a little warning at the top of the screen, and allow you to edit the permissions (kind of like what the app does now, but as an official-looking browser message).

Oh, and Google should also do this with the Android App Store...

Re: I was annoyed with sites asking for too many Facebook privileges and made this

#70
post #57
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. First, I actually do have this warning in the README. Second, if the app breaks when it doesn't have enough permissions, that's really just the laziness of the app developer. Handle the error gracefully if you really need the permission, and prompt for it again, explaining what you need it for.

The app "breaking" isn't necessarily as cut-and-dried as "Threw an unhandled exception". Functionality that fails to work as the user expected (because the user revoked a key permission enabling that functionality) is "broken", and results in bug reports, which results in developer time spent trying to reproduce an issue that was introduced because the user violated one of the basic assumptions in the app. You should…

I see it as being very similar to something like noflash - if I choose to install and run noflash it "breaks" some websites. Sometimes that's exactly what I wanted it to do - sometimes it's collateral damage, and when/if I notice it I can go in and whitelist something I broke to make it work again.

Unless you're worried that somehow this extension will get sneaky-loaded without the user understanding what it does, I find it hard to see your argument as anything but alarmism...

(Having said that, I've never written a Facebook app, and have no personal experience with that demographic - I could be easily convinced that popular Facebook app developers do get the sort of customers who complain that their critical "RanchVille" app - which they got for free - is broken with a blank screen and needs fixing _immediately_, oh and BTW hurry up, it's getting cold in this blackout!)

Post reply on HN