Facebook Home destroys any notion of privacy(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Facebook Home destroys any notion of privacy
http://gigaom.com/2013/04/04/why-facebook-home-bothers-me-it-destroys-any-notion-of-privacy/
34 comments
I just noticed that gigaom.com has at least 9 tracking services on their site.
"This future is going to happen – and it is too late to debate. However, the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us."
A little sensationalized? It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Honestly I think most of us can agree Facebook on average is useful service that has improved our lives. So yes it will probably help target us, the product, better to marketing/advertising.
As more and more promising services get absorbed or shutdown maybe it'll get clearer and clearer that if you dont want your data to be the product itself then we should start paying for the services we care about.
A little sensationalized? It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Honestly I think most of us can agree Facebook on average is useful service that has improved our lives. So yes it will probably help target us, the product, better to marketing/advertising.
As more and more promising services get absorbed or shutdown maybe it'll get clearer and clearer that if you dont want your data to be the product itself then we should start paying for the services we care about.
I don't use the word "evil" pretty much for anybody, but I think the business model is at the very least screwed up. If it's a valuable service, why do they have to be so shady? I'd happily pay facebook $10/month or whatever (I can't imagine they make more than that on ads on me) to use their service. The problem is that they make it seem free, and people just don't understand the extent to which it tracks you. It's the same business model car dealerships use when they try to steer you towards negotiating in terms of monthly payments to avoid your focusing on the bottom line cost--you can get more out of people when you hide the ball about how much your service actually costs them.
Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook?
There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?
Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook?
There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?
1) The constant refrain from many in the tech community of "I would pay to use service X and therefore having a paywall is a legitimate business model" frustrates me to no end, because it's such a "moderately wealthy tech person from the West" point of view held by those with the disposable income to spend on these services. If Facebook's mission is to "make the world more open and connected," it would be impossible to accomplish that if you're charging some rando in Uganda who is accessing Facebook on a 'feature' phone, or worse, the equivalent of their monthly or yearly income. Further, if you look at the political discourse in the middle east that is occurring predominantly on FB and Twitter, it would be ass-backward (and truly "evil") to charge these people to have that discourse.
2) Indeed the point you make about non-techie friends is relevant but you miss the point -- most people don't care about these issues if the result is an amazingly useful tool. So what if ads are correlated with usage: god-forbid you see something interesting that you may want to buy or is relevant to your tastes. And honestly it's no more true that FB 'gives' your data away any more than Google 'gives' away your Gmail/Gdrive/Picassa/etc. data.
2) Indeed the point you make about non-techie friends is relevant but you miss the point -- most people don't care about these issues if the result is an amazingly useful tool. So what if ads are correlated with usage: god-forbid you see something interesting that you may want to buy or is relevant to your tastes. And honestly it's no more true that FB 'gives' your data away any more than Google 'gives' away your Gmail/Gdrive/Picassa/etc. data.
Is Google's business model screwed up as well?
Well, to the extent that Google+ is a wannabe Facebook, it can't be any better, right?
Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited.
And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't.
Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited.
And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't.
Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV? Certain channels cater to certain type of people so ad buyers would buy ads based on demographics of a certain show (for example, Shark Tank has one of the highest avg income audiences in the country, so it would make sense for Mercedes to advertise when the show airs) .
People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech.
The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech.
The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
> You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV?
Not unless you have a Nielsen box.
Not unless you have a Nielsen box.
Right, cause pre-Home Facebook was so respectful of people's private lives...
There's an Apple-tastic motto for you:
All your privacy is gone. Again. Give up your privacy again for the very first time. All your privacy is gone again. Better.If this is a problem for you, then don't use it.
You don't get it man, there won't be a choice. You will be forced to use Facebook Home.
On one phone by one manufacturer. If you don't like the OS, don't buy the phone.
That assumes you know about this in the first place. It's not like everyone reads Hacker News or GigaOM; this kind of news often doesn't trickle down to MM.
The article brings up a very good point about FB getting access to a lot more user data on the phone outside of their app since they essentially are replacing the app launcher as well. Google gets access to all this data by owning the OS. FB in that sense made a brilliant play. It kind of corrupts google's data collection as well since all user interaction will be going through the FB Home app now.
Also its kind of naive to expect facebook to respect privacy when all they do is deal with data.
Also its kind of naive to expect facebook to respect privacy when all they do is deal with data.
A launcher is just another app; it doesn't have any extra powers. It just happens be the app that is launched/restored when the home button is pressed -- that's it.
It also replaces the app drawer, which means when you click an app icon to launch an app -- from either the home screen or the app drawer -- FB Home can make a note of it and send that information to FB.
It'll only take someone with a network sniffer 5 seconds to discover if it does this and then there will be bad news about it for weeks.
More likely they just want people to spend more time using Facebook.
More likely they just want people to spend more time using Facebook.
Pray may I ask how anyone can use than information to harm me?
There's obvious privacy issues, you don't want say, your employer finding out you just used certain apps like a job seeker or something else that posts to Facebook that you use it and ergo Facebook automatically likes it for you like they do with keywords.
You think Google will let that happen? They are enemies competing for the same market. What I think will happen is that Facebook will fork Android, offer facebook edition phones, and simply one up google. How come? Google is awfully bad at marketing, and Facebook is not.
I'm not aware of any significant amount of Facebook marketing (outside of Facebook itself) but quite a lot of good Google marketing. I would have said Google was far more experienced and capable in that area.
I am not sure FB forking OS gives them the ROI. Its a waste of effort for them. FB does not have anything to offer outside of their social network. The Home project is all they have to offer. Nothing more.
Also the tech crowd do they marketing for Google. Goodwill and great services are their marketing tools and that seems to be working very well for them so far. Just look at this site and reddit to see how vehemently people support Google.
Also the tech crowd do they marketing for Google. Goodwill and great services are their marketing tools and that seems to be working very well for them so far. Just look at this site and reddit to see how vehemently people support Google.
Not too long ago when iOS was released users jumped ship to Android due to the maps fiasco.
If Facebook forks Android, do you think people are willing to give up Google's ecosystem in exchange for Facebook's?
Even if you find Facebook chat / messages a viable replacement for Gtalk / Gmail, this still means no access to Google Play Store.
Amazon was willing to create a second competing marketplace and sell its devices as media players, but Facebook will not have those in place if they fork Android. Do you think Facebook has enough leverage to pull this off?
I don't think so, but since the phone is already in the works time will tell.
If Facebook forks Android, do you think people are willing to give up Google's ecosystem in exchange for Facebook's?
Even if you find Facebook chat / messages a viable replacement for Gtalk / Gmail, this still means no access to Google Play Store.
Amazon was willing to create a second competing marketplace and sell its devices as media players, but Facebook will not have those in place if they fork Android. Do you think Facebook has enough leverage to pull this off?
I don't think so, but since the phone is already in the works time will tell.
> Not too long ago when iOS was released users jumped ship to Android due to the maps fiasco.
I don't think this really happened very much, but I'd love to see some numbers. Maybe a lot of tech enthusiasts waited on upgrading to stick with Google Maps until the new Google Maps came out.
> Amazon was willing to create a second competing marketplace and sell its devices as media players, but Facebook will not have those in place if they fork Android. Do you think Facebook has enough leverage to pull this off?
I would be surprised if Facebook went this way and didn't stay within the bounds other phone makers do and get Google certification. There is no reason why Google wouldn't allow Facebook to sell a phone with Google Play on it.
I don't think this really happened very much, but I'd love to see some numbers. Maybe a lot of tech enthusiasts waited on upgrading to stick with Google Maps until the new Google Maps came out.
> Amazon was willing to create a second competing marketplace and sell its devices as media players, but Facebook will not have those in place if they fork Android. Do you think Facebook has enough leverage to pull this off?
I would be surprised if Facebook went this way and didn't stay within the bounds other phone makers do and get Google certification. There is no reason why Google wouldn't allow Facebook to sell a phone with Google Play on it.
Facebook doesn't need to fork Android. They're commandeering Android from Google. People using this will be spending time in Facebook's ecosystem, pushing Google's services into the background. And considering that Google doesn't directly profit from Android but instead tries to profit from people using their services and subsequently ads, this is bad for Google.
So previously your private information went to Google/Samsung or HTC or Motorola/Your carrier, now it will go to Facebook/Google/Samsung or HTC or Motorola/Your carrier?
Right. Between Google Now and other location services by Google (Latitude), Google knows when I'm home, work, traveling, etc.
Now Facebook will want to get into that information via their "Home" app/launcher.
Many services want location data. Context based location data is getting more popular.
[deleted]
Some thoughts:
1) this article is based upon hypothetical notions about what Home "may" do, despite it being not even released yet
2) Google has collected user data for ages via Android for Google Now and few complained about privacy issues -- all data from its various accounts are aggregated into one centralized location to target ads more effectively for users. If you're really going to cry about privacy issues you need to be fair here and hold everyone accountable, and not just sites you may not like.
3) The majority of people may not care, frankly -- people optimizes their utility differently.
1) this article is based upon hypothetical notions about what Home "may" do, despite it being not even released yet
2) Google has collected user data for ages via Android for Google Now and few complained about privacy issues -- all data from its various accounts are aggregated into one centralized location to target ads more effectively for users. If you're really going to cry about privacy issues you need to be fair here and hold everyone accountable, and not just sites you may not like.
3) The majority of people may not care, frankly -- people optimizes their utility differently.
It's concerning to me, because I'm worried about this social network creep over our phones. Of course, I'm not going to install this crap, but if Facebook Home proves successful for Facebook, will Google move in the same direction? (Yes.) We've already seen Google kill off Google Reader in hopes of driving more traffic to Google Plus.
This is what prevents me from getting too invested in a mobile ecosystem like Android or iOS. I like smartphones, but I want the device to serve me, not Google or Facebook's advertisers.
This is what prevents me from getting too invested in a mobile ecosystem like Android or iOS. I like smartphones, but I want the device to serve me, not Google or Facebook's advertisers.
will Google move in the same direction?
They could already have if they wanted to- they own the code for the stock launcher, after all.
They could already have if they wanted to- they own the code for the stock launcher, after all.
Right, but it's all about the incentives. If they did that now, there would be a big backlash against Google and Android. However, with Facebook leading the way, it could become a plausible scenario to see some similar behavior from Google.
Hopefully not, though. I hope this whole thing is a disaster for Facebook.
Hopefully not, though. I hope this whole thing is a disaster for Facebook.
i will just say that Firefox OS cannot arrive quickly enough.
I'm not sure how Firefox OS vs Android OS really factors into the discussion. If Firefox OS is fully-featured and open enough to become an alternative to Android, FB Home could conceivably be built to run just as well on Firefox OS as on Android.
Exactly, of course, unless the licensing terms to modify FirefoxOS as much as Android are onerous to the likes of Facebook.
I think the pining for FirefoxOS is only meaningful if Mozilla takes a stand on privacy or the like. And they're not in a strong position to do so.
I think the pining for FirefoxOS is only meaningful if Mozilla takes a stand on privacy or the like. And they're not in a strong position to do so.
yes, but i'm expecting mozilla will have vastly more granular and privacy-first oriented permissions than android. since google wants your data, and mozilla does not.
ideally, i would like to hook and script a conditional firewall of sorts between any apps and my hardware or data. for example, i dont want any app querying my location when i am at home or at work. how awesome would it be to set rules like this?
some invasive permissions are ok when i choose to allow them, but not indefinitely so long as the app lives on my phone, which is the situation right now. i can do a lot of quasi-scripting with Tasker for android, but not nearly enough.
ideally, i would like to hook and script a conditional firewall of sorts between any apps and my hardware or data. for example, i dont want any app querying my location when i am at home or at work. how awesome would it be to set rules like this?
some invasive permissions are ok when i choose to allow them, but not indefinitely so long as the app lives on my phone, which is the situation right now. i can do a lot of quasi-scripting with Tasker for android, but not nearly enough.
You know how Mozilla makes their money, right?
https://www.google.com/search?q=ok&rls=org.mozilla:en-US...
https://www.google.com/search?q=ok&rls=org.mozilla:en-US...
and? are you suggesting that google, by some logical extension, is influencing mozilla's privacy decisions in their OS?
18% of internet users use firefox. thats a lot of eyeballs google would be missing out on without the search deal in place. they gets much more out of that arrangement than mozilla does to have any leverage. MS would be equally happy to pay mozilla for that 18%. moz can easily find many other avenues to make money while goog cannot find an extra 18% user base elsewhere.
18% of internet users use firefox. thats a lot of eyeballs google would be missing out on without the search deal in place. they gets much more out of that arrangement than mozilla does to have any leverage. MS would be equally happy to pay mozilla for that 18%. moz can easily find many other avenues to make money while goog cannot find an extra 18% user base elsewhere.
As well as Ubuntu phone/tablet.
Because Ubuntu would never do anything shady... like having desktop search search Amazon...
I haven't been liking the direction Ubuntu's been heading for a while. Do you know of any other Linux distros I could recommend to beginners similar to Ubuntu but without the crap?
I'm not sure why I would allow Facebook on to my phone in the first place, let alone to run the whole show. Their privacy record isn't exactly great and runs contrary to their business model.
I don't trust their app (look at the email address change nonsense), let alone a bigger one, and the page renders just fine in a mobile browser. I also find the whole "ping me when a close friend does or says anything" aspect of the app as I've seen others use it to be a little obsessive and possibly even creepy.
I don't trust their app (look at the email address change nonsense), let alone a bigger one, and the page renders just fine in a mobile browser. I also find the whole "ping me when a close friend does or says anything" aspect of the app as I've seen others use it to be a little obsessive and possibly even creepy.
If you don't trust them, you wouldn't install this app. So... whats the issue? Nobody will be harmed by this.
"If you don't trust them, you wouldn't install this app. So... whats the issue?"
Other people will install it without thinking about the implications.
"Nobody will be harmed by this."
What definition of 'harm' are we using? Because they've already shown that given access to people's address books they cause trouble.
Other people will install it without thinking about the implications.
"Nobody will be harmed by this."
What definition of 'harm' are we using? Because they've already shown that given access to people's address books they cause trouble.
It's interesting to consider if it's really your or my job to call on the government to "protect" other people that don't think about the implications. My answer would be sorry, but no.
Who said anything about the government??
The original post ends with this: "We need to ask our legislative representatives to understand that Facebook wants to go from our desktops and browsers right into our home-- the place where we need to be private."
LOL. I guess the 7 people who upvoted me didn't read to the end of the article either :)
I believe his point was that you don't trust them enough to install their normal app, so you wouldn't be expected to install Facebook Home.
However, someone who has already installed the normal app doesn't need much more trust to add Home as well.
However, someone who has already installed the normal app doesn't need much more trust to add Home as well.
What happens if you don't install the app but it comes pre-installed on your shiny new phone and you're not tech savvy enough to take it off?
Depending on which phone you buy, it might not be you installing it.
> I also find the whole "ping me when a close friend does or says anything" aspect of the app as I've seen others use it to be a little obsessive and possibly even creepy.
The problem here is in your friendship, not Facebook.
The problem here is in your friendship, not Facebook.
I don't think so, the people I've observed that have this enabled are very good friends of mine and I don't mind that they get pinged when I post something inconsequential. It's also not my call, I'm posting info for them to see and if they want to use a client that notifies them any time I post it then that's their right.
But there is definitely the potential for stalker-ish stuff there. I suppose in that case, yes the friendship would be the problem.
--edit-- But when the friendship isn't in question, I guess I find it a bit weird and overly-reliant on FB to have your phone set up to alert you every time a 'close' friend does anything.
But there is definitely the potential for stalker-ish stuff there. I suppose in that case, yes the friendship would be the problem.
--edit-- But when the friendship isn't in question, I guess I find it a bit weird and overly-reliant on FB to have your phone set up to alert you every time a 'close' friend does anything.
I want to know how permissions will be handled on Facebook Home when preinstalled. Going through the play store, you will more or less see what you are agreeing to (likely, a huge list of everything possible). But preinstalled?
I doubt it would prompt you for the permissions in a similar way to the play store, I imagine that everything they need legally is probably covered by the facebook ToS, or will be in an extra ToS clicked through on first use.
This is idiotic. For one, it's no secret which apps are popular. Facebook doesn't need a trojan horse to figure that out, they just need to look at App Annie.
For another, any app with location services permissions can do exactly what he's describing.
Also what does "Android allows Facebook to do whatever it wants on the platform, and that means accessing the hardware as well," mean? Unless you're rolling your own version of Android (is that what's on the HTC First?) that's simply not true. You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want" if you're putting it in the Play app store.
As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.
For another, any app with location services permissions can do exactly what he's describing.
Also what does "Android allows Facebook to do whatever it wants on the platform, and that means accessing the hardware as well," mean? Unless you're rolling your own version of Android (is that what's on the HTC First?) that's simply not true. You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want" if you're putting it in the Play app store.
As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.
> As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.
Except for the part where no other app collects or maintains anywhere near as much data about your personal history, your friends, what you look like, what your friends look like, what you like, what your friends like, who you talk to, what you talk about, what your friends talk about, which services you subscribe to, where you went to school, where you worked, when you worked, when you graduated, when you began a relationship, when you ended a relationship, your sexual preferences...
I could keep going.
Except for the part where no other app collects or maintains anywhere near as much data about your personal history, your friends, what you look like, what your friends look like, what you like, what your friends like, who you talk to, what you talk about, what your friends talk about, which services you subscribe to, where you went to school, where you worked, when you worked, when you graduated, when you began a relationship, when you ended a relationship, your sexual preferences...
I could keep going.
Facebook already has that data and gives most of it away via connect to third parties with a click. If you're already using Facebook, and using location-based apps, then getting upset over this is silly.
You're free to feel any way you'd like. I don't have a strong opinion.
That said – Facebook's long record of privacy over-reaches is well established. My hunch is that given the high value a smartphone, and its data, has in people's lives, a position of caution is probably a lot more reasonable than plugging one's ears and saying "Everything is going to be just fine."
Software is changeable. Who knows what they'll do once they're entrenched.
Who knows what will become possible.
That said – Facebook's long record of privacy over-reaches is well established. My hunch is that given the high value a smartphone, and its data, has in people's lives, a position of caution is probably a lot more reasonable than plugging one's ears and saying "Everything is going to be just fine."
Software is changeable. Who knows what they'll do once they're entrenched.
Who knows what will become possible.
Well, any other app could. Facebook is not exclusive in having access to this information, they're just one of the few asking you for it. Every other app could ask for it as well.
> Every other app could ask for it as well.
They really couldn't. Facebook benefits from network effects they've spent years building. You pour data into Facebook because your friends are there. Other apps would find the same data much harder to collect at scale.
Regardless, this isn't a hypothetical could situation. Facebook is real. And Facebook does these things. More successfully than anyone else. And now they want to saddle up on your phone's most-used piece of UI. All that data, floating past that one crucial screen. Now.
That's a big responsibility for a company with a less-than-stellar track record on privacy.
They really couldn't. Facebook benefits from network effects they've spent years building. You pour data into Facebook because your friends are there. Other apps would find the same data much harder to collect at scale.
Regardless, this isn't a hypothetical could situation. Facebook is real. And Facebook does these things. More successfully than anyone else. And now they want to saddle up on your phone's most-used piece of UI. All that data, floating past that one crucial screen. Now.
That's a big responsibility for a company with a less-than-stellar track record on privacy.
[deleted]
I agree with OM, Facebook Home is not just one app but a suite of apps running on your phone. The scary part is that these would be bundled by OEM's and might be harder to stop and even uninstall :( Think about the scenarios when you start to see all kinds of ad's popping up on your home screen and impossible to remove? . Remember, fb still needs to solve the problem of serving ad's on mobile well.
Exactly, this is "the money quote":
"The scary part is that these would be bundled by OEM's and might be harder to stop and even uninstall".
"The scary part is that these would be bundled by OEM's and might be harder to stop and even uninstall".
I don't see how an informed consumer can't avoid this. I really started to dislike OEM's and decided to go Nexus. The number of bundled apps that went dead (Blockbuster went bankrupt and yet I was stuck with that app) or unsupported just drove me away.
I understand that now instead of worrying about unsupported apps you have to worry about what these apps track in the background, however there are a number of other phone options - why not just use another?
The appeal of this Launcher is there, it seems like a fairly clean interface that is satisfying to use, but like Facebook.com, if you don't feel comfortable using it, then you don't have to.
I understand that now instead of worrying about unsupported apps you have to worry about what these apps track in the background, however there are a number of other phone options - why not just use another?
The appeal of this Launcher is there, it seems like a fairly clean interface that is satisfying to use, but like Facebook.com, if you don't feel comfortable using it, then you don't have to.
> I don't see how an informed consumer can't avoid this.
So it's fine because less than 10% of all people can avoid it?
Take a step out of your tech-bubble for a moment (or maybe a bit longer, it's really educational).
A side-related example. Most people that aren't really into tech, as well as most people outside the age range of, say, 14-40, are completely unable to avoid accidentally installing browser toolbars. These are not dumb people. They know what toolbars are, how they get on their system, and what to look out for. Still, it happens. Because, oops. But they are unable to get rid of them, because even if they knew where to look, they wouldn't know which of the installed programs would be safe to remove.
That's just an example, because it's just something in particular I see all the time, right now. Shit that happens to otherwise really clever and smart people. And it's even worse when I see it happen to more vulnerable parts of the population.
This is the sort of thing that inspires whitehat hackers to do what they do. I recall that RSnake of the discontinued ha.ckers.org weblog, spoke about how this motivated him in the fight against XSS and other browser-based attacks, even if it was "just" about really silly misleading "social engineering trick" type of attacks that a smart (tech-smart) person would never fall for, but your mother or grandmother might!
So yeah, good for you. But really, this discussion isn't about you, do you really think the people in this thread are getting upset because they fear they themselves cannot avoid this? No, this bothers me because my mom is on Facebook and uses it on her mobile phone, my less-technical friends are on Facebook, the children that I teach and their definitely-not-technical parents are on Facebook!
So it's fine because less than 10% of all people can avoid it?
Take a step out of your tech-bubble for a moment (or maybe a bit longer, it's really educational).
A side-related example. Most people that aren't really into tech, as well as most people outside the age range of, say, 14-40, are completely unable to avoid accidentally installing browser toolbars. These are not dumb people. They know what toolbars are, how they get on their system, and what to look out for. Still, it happens. Because, oops. But they are unable to get rid of them, because even if they knew where to look, they wouldn't know which of the installed programs would be safe to remove.
That's just an example, because it's just something in particular I see all the time, right now. Shit that happens to otherwise really clever and smart people. And it's even worse when I see it happen to more vulnerable parts of the population.
This is the sort of thing that inspires whitehat hackers to do what they do. I recall that RSnake of the discontinued ha.ckers.org weblog, spoke about how this motivated him in the fight against XSS and other browser-based attacks, even if it was "just" about really silly misleading "social engineering trick" type of attacks that a smart (tech-smart) person would never fall for, but your mother or grandmother might!
So yeah, good for you. But really, this discussion isn't about you, do you really think the people in this thread are getting upset because they fear they themselves cannot avoid this? No, this bothers me because my mom is on Facebook and uses it on her mobile phone, my less-technical friends are on Facebook, the children that I teach and their definitely-not-technical parents are on Facebook!
I see your point.
I guess I failed to go into the fact my various purchasing practices were just how I was raised. My father, mother and grandmother would do the same thing as I would. Of course, you're still right in a larger sense: that doesn't help those that weren't raised by my parents.
This is a perfect opportunity for consumer advocate groups to step in and inform people. I don't see how each of us being critical of such a move does anything to help those that would otherwise not have the education about potential privacy issues. I do what I can when friends and family ask me for purchasing advice and I take it very seriously. I keep myself informed in a way that others may not.
I don't want to say I'm changing the world, but really, technology is going to progress, this Launcher is extremely unique and could see quite a few copy cats going the same route (most likely without the support of a major hardware manufacturer) - this is an extremely good potential teaching moment for those that would otherwise not know. I'm just doing what I can to help those that ask for it.
We can't trust the sales people because frankly, they seem less informed than even the average consumer - they just want to sell you the latest phone and renew that 2-year contract. But there are quite a few organizations out there that could probably use more support and increase the proper awareness.
I'm just always of the school that the responsibility is ultimately on the individual, so anything to help that individual make the best and most educated decision is something I think will always lead towards the best results.
> So yeah, good for you. But really, this discussion isn't about you, do you really think the people in this thread are getting upset because they fear they themselves cannot avoid this? No, this bothers me because my mom is on Facebook and uses it on her mobile phone, my less-technical friends are on Facebook, the children that I teach and their definitely-not-technical parents are on Facebook!
Not sure why you need to take this sort of tone, and I also don't see what's inherently wrong with people using Facebook in the first place. If people want quicker access to an App they use all the time in a pretty slick looking interface then then let them consume. Do your part and answer any potential questions they may have and perhaps even interject some technical opinion (without going over the line into lecturing, of course) to help raise their awareness.
I guess I failed to go into the fact my various purchasing practices were just how I was raised. My father, mother and grandmother would do the same thing as I would. Of course, you're still right in a larger sense: that doesn't help those that weren't raised by my parents.
This is a perfect opportunity for consumer advocate groups to step in and inform people. I don't see how each of us being critical of such a move does anything to help those that would otherwise not have the education about potential privacy issues. I do what I can when friends and family ask me for purchasing advice and I take it very seriously. I keep myself informed in a way that others may not.
I don't want to say I'm changing the world, but really, technology is going to progress, this Launcher is extremely unique and could see quite a few copy cats going the same route (most likely without the support of a major hardware manufacturer) - this is an extremely good potential teaching moment for those that would otherwise not know. I'm just doing what I can to help those that ask for it.
We can't trust the sales people because frankly, they seem less informed than even the average consumer - they just want to sell you the latest phone and renew that 2-year contract. But there are quite a few organizations out there that could probably use more support and increase the proper awareness.
I'm just always of the school that the responsibility is ultimately on the individual, so anything to help that individual make the best and most educated decision is something I think will always lead towards the best results.
> So yeah, good for you. But really, this discussion isn't about you, do you really think the people in this thread are getting upset because they fear they themselves cannot avoid this? No, this bothers me because my mom is on Facebook and uses it on her mobile phone, my less-technical friends are on Facebook, the children that I teach and their definitely-not-technical parents are on Facebook!
Not sure why you need to take this sort of tone, and I also don't see what's inherently wrong with people using Facebook in the first place. If people want quicker access to an App they use all the time in a pretty slick looking interface then then let them consume. Do your part and answer any potential questions they may have and perhaps even interject some technical opinion (without going over the line into lecturing, of course) to help raise their awareness.
> I don't see how an informed consumer can't avoid this.
"Informed consumers" make up (at a guess) less than 5% of the overall smartphone market, for some value of being informed about online privacy.
Privacy advocates should raise hell about the potential issues of a facebook-image smartphone now if there's any chance of increasing awareness of the issues outside of "privacy enthusiast" circles.
"Informed consumers" make up (at a guess) less than 5% of the overall smartphone market, for some value of being informed about online privacy.
Privacy advocates should raise hell about the potential issues of a facebook-image smartphone now if there's any chance of increasing awareness of the issues outside of "privacy enthusiast" circles.
> "Informed consumers" make up (at a guess) less than 5% of the overall smartphone market, for some value of being informed about online privacy.
This 'Online Privacy' I've seen thrown around is such a general term that encapsulates both explicit and anonymous data. Facebook isn't outing people or sharing your phone number with anyone who asks for it. Much of what they do with the data is provide contextual ads or information to a user that helps improve their lives as well.
Until people realize this separation, there is too much of a witch hunt in the name of 'online privacy.'
This 'Online Privacy' I've seen thrown around is such a general term that encapsulates both explicit and anonymous data. Facebook isn't outing people or sharing your phone number with anyone who asks for it. Much of what they do with the data is provide contextual ads or information to a user that helps improve their lives as well.
Until people realize this separation, there is too much of a witch hunt in the name of 'online privacy.'
Not to mention most OEMs put a custom launcher of some sort on their Android devices already and pretty much always have. I don't see Facebook as being any more odious than Samsung just because they know I like The Black Keys and Mad Men too. My phone's manufacturer could collect much more personal information about me than Facebook does. For all I know they're recording all my calls and uploaded them somewhere.
Really it's just so easy in the tech blog world to get page views by decrying whatever Facebook does as an invasion of privacy and that's what Om is doing. He should be ashamed for writing such a brainless piece of linkbait.
Really it's just so easy in the tech blog world to get page views by decrying whatever Facebook does as an invasion of privacy and that's what Om is doing. He should be ashamed for writing such a brainless piece of linkbait.
Once again, "Black Keys and Mad Men" is different to "your personal history, your friends, what you look like, what your friends look like, what you like, what your friends like, who you talk to, what you talk about, what your friends talk about, which services you subscribe to, where you went to school, where you worked, when you worked, when you graduated, when you began a relationship, when you ended a relationship, your sexual preferences..."
Facebook doesn't need any apologists, least of all from the HN community. Whether the article is linkbait or not, Facebook does need constant critique. Om Malik points out that Facebook Home means a new kind of persistent data-gathering wrapped in a trendy (?) skin that most facebook users will want to try out. It is bad enough that a billion people blithely use their web and phone apps without them having something that sinks its hooks in deeper
Facebook doesn't need any apologists, least of all from the HN community. Whether the article is linkbait or not, Facebook does need constant critique. Om Malik points out that Facebook Home means a new kind of persistent data-gathering wrapped in a trendy (?) skin that most facebook users will want to try out. It is bad enough that a billion people blithely use their web and phone apps without them having something that sinks its hooks in deeper
This wasn't a useful critique though, it was idiotic scaremongering. If the article gave some useful reasons why you maybe shouldn't install this (they can track your movements and sell ads to people near you in real time) that'd be one thing. But it was idiocy like "they'll see what apps you use and clone them!" or gibberish like "they can access the hardware!"
It's pure linkbait and Om should be ashamed for writing something so poor.
It's pure linkbait and Om should be ashamed for writing something so poor.
Many of those are only known by Facebook if you explicitly fill out the information - and while I hate to be cynical, if folks who use Facebook at this point in time don't realize that this data is collected then shame on them.
Facebook is consistently under a giant lens and receives critiques with every step it takes. Instead of actually taking some rational side to the argument, Om simply scaremongers.
Facebook is consistently under a giant lens and receives critiques with every step it takes. Instead of actually taking some rational side to the argument, Om simply scaremongers.
Nexus has over a dozen force-installed apps (mostly the Play suite these days, but that keeps growing all the time -- a dedicated Magazine store, WTF?)
FB was already pre-installed and non-removable on many Anroid devices (including first-party Google devices!), so that's not a big change.
Recent Android versions include the ability to disable built-in applications. I've got an S3, and I've successfully disabled all of the bundled stuff I don't want as well as most of TouchWiz. There are some Samsung services I can't disable, but they're bits that are non-UI or are hot-swapable and that would break the phone if disabled but not replaced. The stock keyboard and the TouchWiz launcher fall into this category, neither of which I see unless I go out of my way to re-enable them.
My phone didn't come with Facebook installed, although it did have a link in the accounts section to install the application.
My phone didn't come with Facebook installed, although it did have a link in the accounts section to install the application.
If you really care, root your phone and then you can get rid of anything with Titanium Backup. Or you can do what I do and just install CyanogenMod on it. (Both are admittedly too much effort for the general public but not much for many people here.)
Exactly, I don't see this any more privacy invasive than Google Now.
It really boils down to how much you trust the company/app.
It really boils down to how much you trust the company/app.
Yeah, google know your home and where your workplace is but doesn't publish it to everyone.
Facebook did that with a lot of information. Plus it may change how things behave without you agreement (think of @facebook.com emails)
Google also use that data to provide a service (automatically call the navigation app to came back home at night or just give you a reminder on places you go every week). I doon't think facebook will give any kind of service other than keep my friens updated about whatever I do and wherever I go and this is frightening (not the fact that a big company has this data but the fact that everyone will know it)
Google also use that data to provide a service (automatically call the navigation app to came back home at night or just give you a reminder on places you go every week). I doon't think facebook will give any kind of service other than keep my friens updated about whatever I do and wherever I go and this is frightening (not the fact that a big company has this data but the fact that everyone will know it)
Facebook doesn't publish that information for me.
It's PAINFULLY EASY to mark that information private, and to go into the Platform settings and make sure your friends "cannot bring your information with them into apps and websites".
It's two screens and takes about thirty seconds for you to control your Facebook and how much data leaves it.
Seriously guys, don't blame Facebook for your incompetence with their privacy settings.
It's PAINFULLY EASY to mark that information private, and to go into the Platform settings and make sure your friends "cannot bring your information with them into apps and websites".
It's two screens and takes about thirty seconds for you to control your Facebook and how much data leaves it.
Seriously guys, don't blame Facebook for your incompetence with their privacy settings.
A few years ago it was easy to blame Facebook for their privacy settings. They would make a privacy change and override your previous settings. Then the federal government stepped in and forced them to honor your explicitly chosen settings.
Why would you trust any company of that size?
Why would you trust a smaller company, that lacks the talent and funds to audit its staff and partners or secure its databases?
I agree. Besides, most people who use Facebook are those "I have nothing to hide" types.
So? I still care about major parts of a society being that recklessly dumb. I live on this planet, it's my problem, too. I cannot afford to live in a "democracy" full of people who are so easily influenced and/or blackmailed. Their votes count as much as mine, so this is a bug.
How do you blackmail someone who has nothing to hide?
Even people with nothing to hide can suffer the effects of making a mistake:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57565408-71/teacher-faces-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354515/Teacher-sack...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57565408-71/teacher-faces-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354515/Teacher-sack...
By making them suddenly realize that they do, in fact, have things they would rather keep private.
>>As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.
No, it doesn't. I was, till recently, using Nova Launcher and its permissions would pale in comparison with Facebook Messenger's permissions. Mind it, I am not mentioning the full fledged Facebook app here but just the messenger. I am just uninstalling it, to hell with those in my friend list who have virtually ditched all other communication media.(never looked at it's permissions before today)
Why, when WhatsApp and all other apps might be doing it(not mentioning any G app)? Track record. Facebook is a history-sheeter when it comes to privacy and the pledge to keep repeating their act is their business model. Otherwise Google already has everything I do.
>>You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want"
Though it's technically true, the whatever you want part; but the part "have access to a few things you don't on iOS" is such an understatement that it leans towards being a bs.
No, it doesn't. I was, till recently, using Nova Launcher and its permissions would pale in comparison with Facebook Messenger's permissions. Mind it, I am not mentioning the full fledged Facebook app here but just the messenger. I am just uninstalling it, to hell with those in my friend list who have virtually ditched all other communication media.(never looked at it's permissions before today)
Why, when WhatsApp and all other apps might be doing it(not mentioning any G app)? Track record. Facebook is a history-sheeter when it comes to privacy and the pledge to keep repeating their act is their business model. Otherwise Google already has everything I do.
>>You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want"
Though it's technically true, the whatever you want part; but the part "have access to a few things you don't on iOS" is such an understatement that it leans towards being a bs.
What's the privacy difference between G+ and FB?
FB is utterly careless with your data
For all we know, the difference between google and facebook here is simply maturity of the company, and as facebook matures, it's very possible that they'll recant their privacy evilness, to the extent that they can.
Here's what I mean by that last part: the facebook site/service are all about poking holes in your own privacy (in a controlled manner); it's just that currently, you might be carefully letting out bits of information, but facebook is off to the side hawking all of it to all comers, trying to be profitable.
But yeah I agree, at its current stage of gestation as a company, facebook doesn't give a rat's ass about the privacy of your data.
Here's what I mean by that last part: the facebook site/service are all about poking holes in your own privacy (in a controlled manner); it's just that currently, you might be carefully letting out bits of information, but facebook is off to the side hawking all of it to all comers, trying to be profitable.
But yeah I agree, at its current stage of gestation as a company, facebook doesn't give a rat's ass about the privacy of your data.
>>For all we know, the difference between google and facebook here is simply maturity of the company
Facebook is not some new company struggling to find its way in the world. It's huge.
Nor is it new. Google was started in 1998; Facebook in 2004. So Google is 15 and Facebook is 9.
Is that such a big difference? Has Google ever behaved the way Facebook has?
Facebook has faced multiple privacy scandals. It has not said, "whoops, that was an oversight, we'll ensure it never happens again." It has said "meh," and waited for people to get over it.
This is not about maturity, this is about philosophy and character. Facebook's business model is about harvesting and exploiting your data. They are doing that deliberately, and they're more likely to go out of business than to change.
Facebook is not some new company struggling to find its way in the world. It's huge.
Nor is it new. Google was started in 1998; Facebook in 2004. So Google is 15 and Facebook is 9.
Is that such a big difference? Has Google ever behaved the way Facebook has?
Facebook has faced multiple privacy scandals. It has not said, "whoops, that was an oversight, we'll ensure it never happens again." It has said "meh," and waited for people to get over it.
This is not about maturity, this is about philosophy and character. Facebook's business model is about harvesting and exploiting your data. They are doing that deliberately, and they're more likely to go out of business than to change.
I know this doesn't ring true for most people, but I'm actively looking to distance myself from facebook. It doesn't make me "happy" for the most part. It doesn't add to my overall level of fulfillment. Most of my "friends" on fb aren't real friends and often I'm not truly interested in what they're doing. These are all common complaints - nothing new here, but they're all the reason why I'm not interested in incorporating what fb already does, more deeply into my life.
It's a great idea! I've removed everybody from my news feed and use it for events, email, and finding keeping track of people I meet (Rolodex).
Never trusted FB to begin with. I've got a profile that forwards notifications to my email in case someone needs to contact me. Good luck extracting data from that.
The problem with online privacy, is that people believe it exists.
That's why you need people to fight for it. Consider movements such as silent circle and megabox. At the very least, people should worry about blocking companies from abusing user data, removing Patriot Act, so on. Truth is, people have to give a shit.
Facebook "open house"
Facebook has a lot to offer and its design is showing to be top notch. I think based on numbers they are a 'mobile' company, but all this fluff and desire to sandbox them from the others just proves that they aren't competing, but just being thrifty.
I think the more obvious and immediate threat to privacy is that anyone can see the contents of your facebook stream right on the lock screen; and they can even interact with the contents without unlocking the phone.
Do we know if that's true if the phone is password protected? (Honest question, I haven't been able to watch the video.)
Luckily, Android's lock screen has deep dependencies (purges in-memory passwords for VPN, for example), so it can't be disabled be an app. That said, it can be prevented from appearing due to a timeout. Pressing the power button should always lock your phone.
Android already offers lock screen widgets, so it's possible FB Home will include something to that effect that would show even while the phone is locked.
It would be entirely optional to use that widget, however, unless FB Home is able to replace the lock screen itself. As far as I know, that can't be done without rooting the device.
It would be entirely optional to use that widget, however, unless FB Home is able to replace the lock screen itself. As far as I know, that can't be done without rooting the device.
It's pretty clear from the website and the coverage that it does replace the lock screen itself:
https://www.facebook.com/home
Now, whether or not it replaces the lock screen when it has a passcode/security, is a different story.
But, by default, your FB info is available just by tapping the unlock button/home button BUT BEFORE you unlock.
Now, whether or not it replaces the lock screen when it has a passcode/security, is a different story.
But, by default, your FB info is available just by tapping the unlock button/home button BUT BEFORE you unlock.
No idea. I have been looking for some indication in the coverage but there's been none that I've seen. It seems clear (see my reply before) that it replaces the lock screen when it's not password protected.
Even if this isn't true, your friends with unlocked phones could be leaking your otherwise private posts to anyone who sees their phone.
The phone’s GPS can send constant information back to the Facebook servers,
telling it your whereabouts at any time.
Focusing just on the privacy side ignores all the benefits from giving a service more information. Facebook isn't tricking users into this. Users want it.
Highlight?
I get that they needed to drive engagement before they had ubiquity, but the interaction became about seeing people I didn't know. Like most social products, the experience changes when more people are on it. In my opinion, Facebook, Apple, Google, and device makers are the only companies that can solve this problem.
So Facebook can now do everything Apple and Google has been able to do for years.
Apple and Google have a don't have a long track record of intentionally exposing information that was entrusted to them as private.
I don't think we should be too surprised with how FB will use the new data. I'm just wondering who Facebook is going to share this data with.
I know a guy who works at one of Facebook's "partner companies" that pays gobs for FB user data. This partner company gets (as far as they can tell) fully-populated user data in Facebook's user dumps - way, way more information than they need or ask for. So the partner company puts this data through arduous preprocessing steps to filter out most of the details before any user data hits real systems. They're scared of the legal liability of holding onto all the personal details they receive don't need but Facebook shares anyway because Facebook genuinely doesn't care as long as they're monetizing.
So yeah, I'm scared of where this new data is going to go. Not what FB uses it for themselves.
I know a guy who works at one of Facebook's "partner companies" that pays gobs for FB user data. This partner company gets (as far as they can tell) fully-populated user data in Facebook's user dumps - way, way more information than they need or ask for. So the partner company puts this data through arduous preprocessing steps to filter out most of the details before any user data hits real systems. They're scared of the legal liability of holding onto all the personal details they receive don't need but Facebook shares anyway because Facebook genuinely doesn't care as long as they're monetizing.
So yeah, I'm scared of where this new data is going to go. Not what FB uses it for themselves.
I deleted my FB account when they IPO'd as I could then plainly see that the only worth in the company was user data and it would certainly be monetised as much as possible.
But 'deleting' an account probably doesn't do much more than remove the data from the immediate web services. My data has probably been sold to multiple 3rd parties by now.
But 'deleting' an account probably doesn't do much more than remove the data from the immediate web services. My data has probably been sold to multiple 3rd parties by now.
When you delete your account, the data is actually removed. As part of the recent privacy audit, the Irish DPC reviewed the account deletion framework and verified that it does indeed work:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/21-09-12--Facebook-Ireland... (section 2.10 - page 41)
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/21-09-12--Facebook-Ireland... (section 2.10 - page 41)
> But 'deleting' an account probably doesn't do much more than remove the data from the immediate web services.
If you think they delete the data at all from anywhere you're out of your mind. Records are tombstoned, moved to cold(er) storage for efficiency and then not displayed. Certainly not deleted.
If you think they delete the data at all from anywhere you're out of your mind. Records are tombstoned, moved to cold(er) storage for efficiency and then not displayed. Certainly not deleted.
Facebook does not sell user data regardless of what you may have heard.
See: https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583/
See: https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583/
Facebook doesn't sell user data.
Yes, yes it does. You'll need to refine your brief assertion to make it correct. It's all anonymized of course, but Facebook absolutely has many commercial agreements to share its user data with partner companies. A common part of these agreements, for example, is for the partner companies to also share their user data with Facebook.
I've worked at Facebook for four years. No, no we don't, no matter what the "guy you know" says. Harrison already provided you with our very strongly worded, official claims to that effect.
Since you're the one claiming otherwise, how about an actual, verifiable example? "Company X paid Facebook $Y for user data Z" doesn't sound like an unreasonably specific request.
Since you're the one claiming otherwise, how about an actual, verifiable example? "Company X paid Facebook $Y for user data Z" doesn't sound like an unreasonably specific request.
I see. Money must not be explicitly trading hands in these commercial data-sharing agreements, because you're very serious about that one detail (and nothing else). I obviously don't have insight into these commercial data-sharing contracts - actually, you do. So I'll assume I'm wrong about dollars being exchanged directly.
But I'm not wrong that data is shared liberally and unnecessarily in these data-sharing agreements, which was actually the point. And I'm not wrong that those agreements are commercial in nature with Facebook receiving something in return. Or are you saying Facebook's data-sharing agreement system is a giant charity program. So I'm still okay with calling commercial data-sharing agreements "selling user data."
But I'm not wrong that data is shared liberally and unnecessarily in these data-sharing agreements, which was actually the point. And I'm not wrong that those agreements are commercial in nature with Facebook receiving something in return. Or are you saying Facebook's data-sharing agreement system is a giant charity program. So I'm still okay with calling commercial data-sharing agreements "selling user data."
> They're scared of the legal liability of holding onto all the personal details they receive don't need but Facebook shares anyway because Facebook genuinely doesn't care as long as they're monetizing.
I find it odd that Facebook isn't scared of the same legal liability. Infact, they should be more scared. I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to. They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves. I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.
I find it odd that Facebook isn't scared of the same legal liability. Infact, they should be more scared. I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to. They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves. I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.
> I find it odd that Facebook isn't scared of the same legal liability. Infact, they should be more scared.
You don't understand how partnerships work in this case. Facebook is paid to provide data according to a contract between the two companies. That's it. They have many, many such contracts to fulfill with many partners. These contracts don't say "we provide exactly the data you ask for, no more, no less" because that is a lot, lot more work and at the end of the day the contracts still get signed and FB still gets paid. A lot. Where do you see legal liability for FB so far? Their terms of service fully permit this data sharing, and the contracts are just between FB and partner companies.
Meanwhile, the partner companies use the shared data to produce value-added products which they provide to their customers under existing contracts and policies. They can't violate their customer's privacy or rights under any of the existing such policies, which are not identical to FB's. In fact, depending on the industry of the partner company, these policies can be extremely different. It is up to the partner company - not Facebook - to comply with the partner company's contracts/policies.
> I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to.
Facebook doesn't see any reason why they should waste time withholding more data than they need to. They still get paid the same amount, and the partner companies just filter out what they don't want. What's the point? There isn't even a big long-term concern here for Facebook, since extra social data isn't exactly very useful years later.
> They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves.
You say that, but every large technology company has to prioritize what they use engineering manpower for. Not everything a company can do or wants to do ends up getting done. For example, you might say "Facebook has the skill and resources to delete data from their CDN. I highly doubt they would throw away money on byte stored in Akamai" and yet they didn't do so for years and probably still don't. And that's a far easier problem with real measurable costs. Compare that to filtering the same enormous data set differently for each partner company when there's no compelling business reason to do so. The contracts are still going to be signed and Facebook will still get paid. Why should anyone care?
> I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.
This is something FB is doing and have been doing for years. So your doubts are baseless.
You don't understand how partnerships work in this case. Facebook is paid to provide data according to a contract between the two companies. That's it. They have many, many such contracts to fulfill with many partners. These contracts don't say "we provide exactly the data you ask for, no more, no less" because that is a lot, lot more work and at the end of the day the contracts still get signed and FB still gets paid. A lot. Where do you see legal liability for FB so far? Their terms of service fully permit this data sharing, and the contracts are just between FB and partner companies.
Meanwhile, the partner companies use the shared data to produce value-added products which they provide to their customers under existing contracts and policies. They can't violate their customer's privacy or rights under any of the existing such policies, which are not identical to FB's. In fact, depending on the industry of the partner company, these policies can be extremely different. It is up to the partner company - not Facebook - to comply with the partner company's contracts/policies.
> I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to.
Facebook doesn't see any reason why they should waste time withholding more data than they need to. They still get paid the same amount, and the partner companies just filter out what they don't want. What's the point? There isn't even a big long-term concern here for Facebook, since extra social data isn't exactly very useful years later.
> They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves.
You say that, but every large technology company has to prioritize what they use engineering manpower for. Not everything a company can do or wants to do ends up getting done. For example, you might say "Facebook has the skill and resources to delete data from their CDN. I highly doubt they would throw away money on byte stored in Akamai" and yet they didn't do so for years and probably still don't. And that's a far easier problem with real measurable costs. Compare that to filtering the same enormous data set differently for each partner company when there's no compelling business reason to do so. The contracts are still going to be signed and Facebook will still get paid. Why should anyone care?
> I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.
This is something FB is doing and have been doing for years. So your doubts are baseless.
If this were true, you could make a fortune on a class action law suit against Facebook's breaches of their TOS.
I'm just wondering who Facebook is going to share this data with.
I think you answered your own question with: pays gobs
I think you answered your own question with: pays gobs
I find this line extremely cynical:
> Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us
It's entirely possible that better targeted marketing and advertising can "improve" our lives. To state this outcome as a dire dystopian end point is making a huge cynical assumption about the motives of companies and commerce in general. I honestly believe that Facebook (and Google for that matter) actually want to improve our lives. I honestly believe that they think that they can introduce advertising in such a way that it's a win win for both parties, at least for a significant number of people.
That doesn't mean I'm naive about things, or even agree. But to see this assumption - that these companies are out to intentionally make our lives worse - written into editorial reporting as if it's a foregone conclusion, is disappointing.
> Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us
It's entirely possible that better targeted marketing and advertising can "improve" our lives. To state this outcome as a dire dystopian end point is making a huge cynical assumption about the motives of companies and commerce in general. I honestly believe that Facebook (and Google for that matter) actually want to improve our lives. I honestly believe that they think that they can introduce advertising in such a way that it's a win win for both parties, at least for a significant number of people.
That doesn't mean I'm naive about things, or even agree. But to see this assumption - that these companies are out to intentionally make our lives worse - written into editorial reporting as if it's a foregone conclusion, is disappointing.
I believe you mis-characterized the statement you're objecting to: "...not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us."
"but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us" does not equal "are out to intentionally make our lives worse". His point is that is clear that FB _will_ benefit from the newly acquired data. You have confidence we all _might_ benefit. The OP points out FB's history, which is undeniably historic in how it has challenged social norms for privacy. It is also no secret that FB (and Google, and ...) make money from advertising, and that rich datasets of details about people make for financially richer advertisers. Skepticism (maybe a little cynicism, even) is not unhealthy or "mean", in this context.
"but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us" does not equal "are out to intentionally make our lives worse". His point is that is clear that FB _will_ benefit from the newly acquired data. You have confidence we all _might_ benefit. The OP points out FB's history, which is undeniably historic in how it has challenged social norms for privacy. It is also no secret that FB (and Google, and ...) make money from advertising, and that rich datasets of details about people make for financially richer advertisers. Skepticism (maybe a little cynicism, even) is not unhealthy or "mean", in this context.
No one doubts that better targeted marketing and advertising can "improve" lives. The dystopian part of this scenario is vesting just two companies with so much power. For example, FB (and Twitter) have already begun restricting API access to apps that are too big or unwilling to be bought out. In the absence of an alternate (or competing) network, they control your experience (and user data). Besides the negative consequences for commerce, there are wider implications for individuals. Dictators and totalitarian regimes sincerely believe they are doing best for their people. That may not be the case.
Instead of bloggers and "journalists" complaining about a service they do not pay for, they should do the only thing they can. Delete their accounts. I saw the writing on the wall 3 years ago and did it. I was not worse off afterwards.
Passively complaining (while at the same time, ironically, including FB buttons) without taking actual actions does nothing.
Passively complaining (while at the same time, ironically, including FB buttons) without taking actual actions does nothing.
Ads suck, but the bigger danger is that the uber-profile will be available for subpoena, or the govt might just flip the fuckit bit and take it because they can. Being allowed to run a billion dollar business unmolested by the govt would be a strong incentive, especially for a company not known for privacy advocacy.
Get rid of the sharing buttons and tracking cookies on your page and maybe I'll take your argument seriously.
Google Now already does all of this. It deduced my address by scraping my emails, and somehow it knows where I work, too. When my airline tickets were emailed to me, it brought up flight tracker information and weather for both arrival and destination cities. Creepy.
Yeah, and they make like 6 copies of every email you send or receive also. Creepy.
This is one of those posts with a scandalous headline to draw you in, but without anything substantial to back it up. I am quite disappointed that this came from a stalwart of a tech blogger like Om Malik. I can understand this coming from an MG Siegler or an Arrington or from the joke of a blog, Gizmodo.
It hinges on the GPS location, which Apple does, quite publicly with theing like Find my iPhone. Google does that already, and so do every other GPS device on earth. I don't even need to know if you are stationary at one location every night. I can just connect the dots on your end points of your trips and figure it out.
Heck even an app like Yelp can figure my home address, based on my restaurant searches. Facebook already knows much more about us, with or without our permission; just by using the website.
It hinges on the GPS location, which Apple does, quite publicly with theing like Find my iPhone. Google does that already, and so do every other GPS device on earth. I don't even need to know if you are stationary at one location every night. I can just connect the dots on your end points of your trips and figure it out.
Heck even an app like Yelp can figure my home address, based on my restaurant searches. Facebook already knows much more about us, with or without our permission; just by using the website.
I have an iphone and even if I had an android, I'd never install this app or get an HTC First. I cannot say the same for everyone I'm fb friends with.
Question: if one of my fb friends installs this or buys that phone, will fb have any additional access to MY personal data?
Question: if one of my fb friends installs this or buys that phone, will fb have any additional access to MY personal data?
TL;DR: "I already tell Facebook all it needs to know, but this new thing is gonna destroy all my privacy (like the Timeline did, like the Graph API did, like FBConnect did,...)"
Wow. It's like the, what, fifth time Facebook destroys any notion of privacy?
"the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us"
If "the problem" is more relevant advertising, I for one, welcome Facebook Home. When advertising becomes useful to me I might stop blocking it.
If "the problem" is more relevant advertising, I for one, welcome Facebook Home. When advertising becomes useful to me I might stop blocking it.
It's a controversial topic, but I agree. If the privacy issue is handled properly (advertisers are not allowed to access any data about you) and the ads are not terribly intrusive, advertising based on what I'm actually interested in and looking for is useful. I'm not the kind of person who gets irrationally angry about any advertising at all, only if it gets in the way of what I'm trying to do at the moment.
Everything he's complaining about is a feature in Google Now. Google Now does know where my house is based on where I stay during the night. It figured out where my girlfriend lives, and tries to route me there sometimes. It knows where I work. It knows when I'm expecting a package from eBay, where I shop, where I go to eat out. Based on those signals, it probably knows how much disposable income I have. This is just Facebook getting jealous over how well Google has sucked all of this data out of it's userbase.
As an aside, Google Now is pretty awesome, and I trust our Google Overlords to not use my personal information for evil.
As an aside, Google Now is pretty awesome, and I trust our Google Overlords to not use my personal information for evil.
"I trust our Google Overlords to not use my personal information for evil."
What do you consider "evil"? You must already accept that they are, or plan to, sell your personal information to advertisers - because why else would they bother setting this service up? Purely for your convenience? So you've made your peace with that, and don't consider it evil, which is entirely up to you. But someone else may feel very differently about this.
What do you consider "evil"? You must already accept that they are, or plan to, sell your personal information to advertisers - because why else would they bother setting this service up? Purely for your convenience? So you've made your peace with that, and don't consider it evil, which is entirely up to you. But someone else may feel very differently about this.
I am so... so... fucking sick of Facebook privacy articles. Don't want Facebook? Don't install their app and use their service. End of discussion - years ago.