Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 15 2018, @11:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the do-you-trust-him? dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Facebook has consistently denied allegations that it listens to its users' conversations through their phone's microphone, but a new document suggests the tech giant has not ruled out doing so in the future.

Facebook users have been sharing circumstantial evidence for several years that suggests Facebook snoops on their private conversations in order to deliver more personalised ads. In April, US lawmakers finally brought the concerns to CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a hearing about data misuse on the firm's platform.

The social media firm released a 454-page document this week to follow up with questions posed to Mr Zuckerberg, after he was criticised for evading some of the most important ones.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-listening-conversations-phone-microphones-ads-app-mark-zuckerberg-a8398291.html

Documents can be found here:
Zuckerberg Testimony
Responses to Commerce Committee
Responses to Judiciary Committee

[Editor's Note: the two response documents are 229 and 225 pages, respectively for a total of 454 pages.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:02AM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday June 16 2018, @01:02AM (#693794) Journal

    Better yet, don't bother making Zuckerberg answer questions about it.

    Just make it illegal! Illegal for ANY company to listen into, record or voice-reco ANY conversations by and between users on ANY app. No OPT in allowed. If that removes any financial incentive to develop these apps, so be it.

    Need an exception for Law enforcement? (If you are feeling charitable towards the FBI for some reason), then make an explicit warrant requirement, and still forbid any company from listening, recording, or voice-to-text capture.

    Make the penalties large enough to fund two or three state governments for a year.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @07:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @07:39AM (#693882)

    It's already illegal in 2 party consent states and that hasn't stopped it from happening. The problem more than anything else is that there's a failure to send these kinds of creeps to prison.