Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8317
Facebook is facing questions about data sharing with Apple, Amazon and other device makers.
Facebook may have violated a 2011 FTC consent degree by giving Apple, Samsung, BlackBerry and other device makers detailed access to user data, according to the New York Times. The social network struck partnerships with at least 60 device makers so that they could offer messaging, "Like" buttons and other features without the need for an app. However, an NYT reporter found that the BlackBerry Hub, for one, was able to glean private data from 556 of his friends, including their religious and political leanings and events they planned to attend.
It could also access other information, including unique identifiers, on 294,258 friends of his friends. The finding appears to fly in the face of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's comments to Congress in March, when he said that "every piece of content that you share on Facebook you own. You have complete control over who sees it and how you share it." Facebook started phasing out the program in April, but it's still in effect for many of the partners.
In a piece entitled "Why We Disagree with The New York Times," Facebook pushed back strongly against the claims. It said that it created APIs for Amazon, Apple, Blackberry, HTC, Microsoft, Samsung and other device makers so that they could offer Facebook on their operating systems at a time when there were no apps or app stores. "All these partnerships were built on a common interest -- the desire for people to be able to use Facebook whatever their device or operating system," wrote VP of Product Partnerships Ime Archibong.
Facebook controlled the APIs tightly, and said the partners signed agreements that prevented information from being used for anything other than to "recreate Facebook-like experience." It also said that the features couldn't be used with permission and that its engineering teams approved all of them. "Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends' information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends," Facebook said. "We are not aware of any abuse by these companies."
Some critics don't agree with Facebook's assessment of the situation, however. A former Facebook employee who led third-party ad and privacy compliance, Sandy Parakilas, noted that the program was controversial even within Facebook. "This was flagged internally as a privacy issue," he said. "It is shocking that this practice may still continue six years later, and it appears to contradict Facebook's testimony to Congress that all friend permissions were disabled."
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/04/facebook-gave-device-makers-user-data/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @11:10PM
Not only 'duh' but we as customers basically begged them to do it. Maybe not on this board but pretty much most of the people I know were glued to FB through their phone. They wanted it integrated, and 'just work'. The easy way is a nice API that 'just works'. Heck it was one of the selling points of getting a fondle slab.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05 2018, @11:14PM
I heard his NPR interview. He sounds like a total douchebag, fronting like a British royalty or Indian guru.
Nevertheless, he noted he refused user data from the FaceFuck. Apparently, despite being a douchebag, he's no stereotype of money-grubbing Jewish rat.
That's right. "Money-grubbing Jewish rat". Can you blame me, with this Suckerbrug and the Google clowns?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 05 2018, @11:32PM (3 children)
I'd rather hear what Facebook got in return for this access. Facebook is in the business of making money. I would guess that money, and/or other assets changed hands. I don't believe that Facebook "gave" access to anyone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:14AM
Have a point, as I was going to post pretty much the same thing.
Pre-installed apps which are near-impossible to remove would be my primary guess for an answer. Learn from Microsoft that people won't install a competitor's program if you provide them with a shiny desktop icon nagging them to join the flock.
And maybe money.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:45AM (1 child)
All FB needed to succeed was to remain in front of everyone's faces - if they could increase the amount of time that their
victimsusers stayed on FB by providing free API access to manufacturers, then it would be worth giving the API access away for free.Plus, it avoids those manufacturers coming up with ideas for competing services.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:00AM
There is a little bit of wordplay going on here.
If I am an ice cream vendor, and I give "free" samples now and then, are they really for really "free"? In actuality, I hope and expect that a lot of the recipients of the "free" ice cream will come back for more ice cream.
On a larger scale, auto dealers like to advertise little freebies, such as "Tax Title and Tag free weekend". How many of us really believe that the dealer is paying for that out of his own pocket? He can only do that if he is overcharging us in the first place.
In this particular case - FB "gave away" API's with certain expectations, which ultimately, translate into money.
Yeah, there is "free", and there is "free".
Your additional angle? Stifling potential competition? Yeah, I like that one too. That is an added bonus.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)
Really, people should understand that anything they post on the Internet is public. Potentially, it will be remembered forever. Who knows, maybe 3 centuries from now Internet archaeologists will be pouring over all these comments from the dawn of the Internet, studying how fads come and go, how culture and language changes, and so on.
Meantime, anyone who posts something so horrible it permanently ruins their reputation is going to have to live with it or take steps such as move to another town, maybe another state, change names, and change all their online accounts. People have been doing the first 2 or 3 for decades. Now and then I've heard of high school kids having to change schools and school districts because they were being ostracized over some incident or other, and often it wasn't even their fault. High school kids can be vicious that way.
I've never been keen about having a Facebook account, and use it as little as possible, but on this it seems to me that privacy advocates are asking too much. Basically they want an "evil bit". Share my posts with my friends, unless it would be evil, then keep my privacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:05PM
People need to understand much more.
It's not like somebody confesses murder on social media and then is surprised something happens to him. It's the everyday perfectly innocent things you do, right down to how often and how fast you move your pointer. Basically anything at all because when you have hundreds of millions of samples, you get to statistically correlate things. And one-in-a-million things literally happen every second. Suddenly your sexual preferences, your financial status, your health situation etc are public knowledge. If you find this incredible look for studies by Michal Kosinski in this very field.
That's the part Joe Bloggs should realize and accept. That's the price of free.