Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#2I'm assuming that by "smartphone" this article is only referring to Android devices? As far as I know, it's not possible (without jailbreaking the user's device) to get read access to SMS on iPhone.
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#3previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3636287
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#4The article's headline seems misleading. In the article itself it seems like what they are really saying is that due to file permissions it is technically possible for applications to access this data, not that it is something these companies are actively doing. They "can" access private data, which is not surprising, but it is not established that they "do" access it.
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#5How ironic that a Murdoch newspaper is "exposing" breaches of privacy.
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#6The article's headline seems misleading. In the article itself it seems like what they are really saying is that due to file permissions it is technically possible for applications to access this data, not that it is something these companies are actively doing. They "can" access private data, which is not surprising, but it is not established that they "do" access it.
[deleted]
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#7The article's headline seems misleading. In the article itself it seems like what they are really saying is that due to file permissions it is technically possible for applications to access this data, not that it is something these companies are actively doing. They "can" access private data, which is not surprising, but it is not established that they "do" access it.
It's not "file permissions", it's the permissions that the Android app is asking for, and you're granting it, at install time.
I've mentioned this here before: look at something like the weather channel app on Amazon's app store, which requests an astonishing array of permissions, including the permission to dial out silently without your interaction.
The Android apps, like Facebook apps, are overreaching, and training users to accept the incursion in order to use well known apps, leaving them more likely to accept the same from obscure apps.
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#8The article's headline seems misleading. In the article itself it seems like what they are really saying is that due to file permissions it is technically possible for applications to access this data, not that it is something these companies are actively doing. They "can" access private data, which is not surprising, but it is not established that they "do" access it.
> The article's headline seems misleading
(zdnet.com)
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#9Facebook response: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151330596285363
Re: Facebook, Flickr, others accused of reading text messages
#10As I posted on a Facebook note from a communications representative at Facebook linked by veyron [0], Facebook, Flickr, and "others" could mitigate their "poor journalists write poorly-researched stories about us" problem by not contributing to Android permissions creep.
If Facebook asks for the SMS permission but doesn't actively use an end-user's messages, the end user is eventually more likely to accept a malware application that asks for SMS permissions and then silently steals their messages. Requesting feature permissions that aren't used visibly is terrible practice.
I think Apple got this particular policy right: their review process screens apps to make sure that visibly requested information is visibly used for something in the application, preventing every application from asking users for every bit of their personal information just to launch the app. In my experience the actual execution of said policy is spotty and inconsistent like the rest of the review process, but the idea is sound.
0: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151330596285363 via http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3637869