Slashdot Mirror


Facebook API Bug Deletes Contact Info On Phones

An anonymous reader writes "If you thought that Facebook's recent unannounced change of its users' email address tied with their account to Facebook ones was bad, you'll be livid if you check your mobile phone contacts and discover that the change has deleted the email addresses of many of your friends. According to Facebook, the glitch was due to a bug in its application-programming interface, and causes the last added email address to be pulled and added to the user's phone Contacts. The company says they are working hard at fixing the problem, but in the meantime, a lot of users have effectively lost some of the information stored on their devices."

178 comments

  1. Well deserved by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any fool who syncs their phone with Facebook deserves all the pain they are likely to get.
    The sad part is they inflict some of this pain on innocent bystanders who they happen to have in their phone books.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Well deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Who in the fuck would ever let their mobile phone have anything to do with Facebook?

      Like parent post says, you do that, you deserve exactly what you get.

    2. Re:Well deserved by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm. I dunno about that. I sync gmail to my phone. My company uses a gmail document repository, too, which I also sync. I sync to my phone's backup server. And I sync to my business Facebook account, too, to see posts, read Facebook chats, etc without having to whip out a laptop or bring up my phone's browser. I also have some apps that interact with Facebook for various reasons.

      I feel I have some pretty good reasons to sync my phone to quite a few web services, including Facebook. I don't trust Facebook at all in my personal life, but deleting data from my business phone's contacts is a major, major screw-up, and nobody would have expected even Facebook to fail this hard. That said, anybody I knew outside of Facebook has a separate contact in my phone, anyway, but had I not taken that precaution, who knows how bad it could have been.

    3. Re:Well deserved by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      You had me convinced until the "business Facebook account" bit.
      I have not yet seen anything more businesslike on Facebook than advertising to employees and customers/clients coerced into being "fans".
      What is the point of a duplicate personal account for business use on an ego-driven gossip tickertape service?

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    4. Re:Well deserved by AaronLawrence · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and nobody would have expected even Facebook to fail this hard

      Huh? Facebook has pretty stated that their strategy is to try major, risky changes at high speed and retract them if necessary. A careful, backwards-compatible, regression tested release process is the opposite of what they do.

      So: I would say anyone trusting facebook with their critical data is a fool.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    5. Re:Well deserved by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's exactly what it's for. I run a small print shop, and fully half my business comes through word of mouth on the site's FB account.

    6. Re:Well deserved by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      That I agree with entirely, and it's why I protected myself. I was just rebutting the idea that there's no reason for syncing FB data to a mobile phone. That said, it was surprising that they did this, and the fact that they are "fixing the problem" shows FB recognizes it as a serious problem. Stupid, anticipated, egregious, malicious; it *could* be any or all of those, but it's definitely an admitted problem, from all accounts.

    7. Re:Well deserved by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      You remember how all those "What do we need email for? We're a business, not a university! Send a Fax if you need it now, otherwise drop it in the post like everyone else." people sounded to you 15-20 years ago?

      That's how you sound now.

      You may not like it, I certainly don't, but this is life.

    8. Re:Well deserved by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I remember once it was geocities.com/somedouche then livejournal.com/sometwat then myspace.com/someshitband

      Now it's Facebook.com/lolcats.

      Am I seeing a pattern here?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    9. Re:Well deserved by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      You can sync and read Facebook posts, chats, etc without having it sync your address book.

    10. Re:Well deserved by AbominousSalad · · Score: 1

      "nobody would have expected even Facebook to fail this hard"

      What nobody expects, is for Facebook to ever think about its users before deploying something. It's things like this, I'd say, that makes curmudgeons of so many IT specialists. Somebody probably warned your company's decision makers that Facebook is too likely a point-of-failure, to trust in that way. He probably warned them until he was blue in the face.

      --
      Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
    11. Re:Well deserved by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      Some of my business contacts are near-luddites who only communicate via phone or in-person meetings; others have faxes, email, AIM, and Skype.
      Sure, Facebook has better-targeted advertisement than flyers, newspapers, radio, and television.
      What does it have to outperform existing technology for real business correspondence?

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    12. Re:Well deserved by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You remember how all those "What do we need email for? We're a business, not a university! Send a Fax if you need it now, otherwise drop it in the post like everyone else." people sounded to you 15-20 years ago? That's how you sound now.

      Except email (and the www) were clearly better than faxes or snail mail. How is Facebook clearly better than email or the www for a business? Viral likes? That's just advertising, and it has such a short window of opportunity during which you can't even control the message (Facebook can choose to make your company's default email address Xxxhookersandblow@Facebookmail.com)

    13. Re:Well deserved by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I'm the decision maker. My shop consists of 3 people - me, my girlfriend, and my daughter. :) My advertising budget allows for a website, a few banners, some local on-line newspaper ads, and word-of-mouth. Facebook's been instrumental in this last one. I have a TON of contacts via Facebook, but I've converted them all into a local address book. My point is simply that syncing my phone to new Facebook contacts used to be marginally useful, at least on initial contact via Facebook. Now it isn't, at all, and I'm probably lucky they didn't overwrite phone numbers or first names, too. I guess I was prepared for any eventuality; I didn't lose any data, but I lost a lot of convenience. It was an annoying surprise to see @facebook.com all up in my phone.

    14. Re:Well deserved by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when a new contact got passed to me in the form of a new business friend request while I was out and about, it was very convenient to sync the data that was already in Facebook, and then add it to a local address book when I got back to my accounting PC. Things like full name, e-mail, phone number, address, etc were all super useful for initial invoicing and contact records; all I had to ask was "is all your contact info on your Facebook page? Ok sweet, I'll sync my phone, enter the data into the office accounting books, and ship your project and an invoice upon completion."

      While it's not difficult to ask for this info explicitly for Quickbooks, it was really convenient for me, at one point. Not to rely on dirty FB data, but to use it when it was known to be good. Now my phone contradicts my Quickbooks data, and I've lost all of this previously useful convenience. The worst part is almost none of my customers know their own profiles have changed until I speak to them.

      In any case; I'm not arguing the reliability of Facebook's data; I'm arguing the usefulness of syncing a phone to FB contact details. The convenience is no longer worth the potential unreliability, and that sucks, at least for me.

  2. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The humanity.

  3. Yea right a 'glitch' by arcite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like most consumers are going to believe this. Of course, what right to they have to complain? FB is a free product and users willingly sign away every semblance of their privacy. Don't want to get burned? DON'T USE FB!

    1. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it might even brick your phone and you have no right to complain. Wait, you dont?

    2. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by kidgenius · · Score: 2

      Like most consumers are going to believe this. Of course, what right to they have to complain? FB is a free product and users willingly sign away every semblance of their privacy. Don't want to get burned? DON'T USE FB!

      No, FB is NOT a free product. Facebook charges quite a bit for the privilege of your ads being displayed to users. The users are the product, not the customer.

    3. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by Schmorgluck · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, I really think it's a glitch, because it's totally incoherent with their business model: Facebook deleting personal data? That would be new!

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    4. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by vlueboy · · Score: 2

      FB is a US company subject to our laws. So you're forgetting several things. To help you recall them more clearly, see this example:

      1) Your company succeeds to legally attract all 500 of your local neighborhood's children daily under the pretense of giving AWAY ("free", see?) food and candy. Everyone wins: parents bring them in daily since they no longer pay for kid's food and socialization sounds good to them and feels great for their kids... what's there to lose?

      2) On the not-so-well appreciated side is the team covering the costs in exchange for monitoring EACH child closely behind 2-way walls for behaviors, choices of candy and identifying clothing trends and optimizing their products for future sales to the community's children.

      3) At some point, the food starts making a select few children's teeth ALL fall out.

      4) THIS. IS. AMERICAAAAA! Ergo, the next step is in this analogy in the real world would be "Lawsuits! Lawsuits, of course! Free doesn't mean we're your guinea pigs and my loss is your loss"

      But given that we're talking about 'damage' + "on the innn-ternet" our laws do not fully have any meaning most of the time and the crime is allowed to continue thanks to how far behind the governments are in paying attention and lazily adapting old laws to new problems without losing lobby money.

      The children's teeth will not come back on their own for those who lost, so they'll probably go elsewhere, but all the other kids are addicted to daily free food and gameplay... parents have been saving cash and WON'T leave because they rationalize the chance of loss against their chances of saving. Ergo, free is still better unless your child gets hit with the next russian roulette round.

    5. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      You forgot step 5.

      5) You hire a lobbyist to get the government to legally indemnify your company from any damage caused by making kids teeth fall out in return for buying the congressmen his next election victory.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    6. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is no more free than Google. You are not paying cash for their services but you are giving them something of value.

  4. Dipshits by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook's programmers have made one mistake after another. I first noticed it when they started redirecting my tablet from the www. to the mobile site. Bastards. They shouldn't be forcing me to a site I don't want to use.

    Then they changed my email to cpu6502@facebook.com. And now this story about the programmers erasing cellphone data "by mistake". Does Facebook hire monkeys to do their coding?

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Dipshits by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet still you have a Facebook account. Why exactly should they set the bar higher if all their screw-ups do is get them more free publicity?

      Every time FB fucks up, the online world whines like it is the end of life as we know it. All you're doing is confirming to FB that you're addicted and can't live without them.

      Why again should they change? You're their bitch and they like it that way.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Dipshits by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And you stayed with them to document their screw ups, right? Yes, I have a FB account, only because they apparently never delete anything. I set it up to test business integration several jobs ago and haven't been there since except only to see if it was still there just recently, because, apparently, one of those wondrous changes you mentioned apparently started sending me updates (or was it a filter I accidentally deleted?)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Dipshits by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because I like facebook's free service, just as I like free TV or free online magazines or free Firefox or free Opera or free Lubuntu. I just wish facebook was as competent as the other guys.

      If I was paying then yes I'd certainly cancel the account, just as I canceled Comsucks. I'm more tolerant of mistakes on free services (since technically I lose nothing) than I am of mistakes for paying services.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook is what happens when you give programmers a ton of money and let them run free. Consequences are not considered, things break often, and users constantly have to deal with their idea of "the latest and greatest". Facebook is in serious need of some process wrangling, before they do something that brings the whole thing crashing down. They're lucky that the web is fault tolerant, or it would have happened already.

    5. Re:Dipshits by ZosX · · Score: 2

      Does Facebook hire monkeys to do their coding?

      I think they should begin recruiting monkeys. It can't make things any worse.

    6. Re:Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they changed my email to cpu6502@facebook.com

      I don't get what this means. Like, let's say you were cpu6502@yourisp.net before Facebook "changed your email". The most popular mail services now are gmail, yahoo, Outlook, and Thunderbird, all of which can store contacts. How did Facebook change anything that's not to do with Facebook?

      Like, if I was mailing with you before I'd have you stored as cpu6502@yourisp.net. I just click your name when I want to send an email. I would still do that and it would still go to yourisp.net. Are you saying somehow Facebook redirected your "real" email onto Facebook? I'd be curious how they managed to do that. Or is your non-Facebook email disabled somehow now?

      I can understand they might provide some new @facebook address for you, but can't you just ignore it entirely? Presumably your friends would email you at the address they always used to, unless you told them otherwise.

    7. Re:Dipshits by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Facebook's programmers have made one mistake after another..... Does Facebook hire monkeys to do their coding?

      They probably hire SoE programmers.

      SoE is Sony Online Entertainment.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:Dipshits by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can understand they might provide some new @facebook address for you, but can't you just ignore it entirely? Presumably your friends would email you at the address they always used to, unless you told them otherwise.

      Did you even RTF Headline? His friends won't email him at the address they always used to, they'll email the @facebook address because Facebook has thoughtfully updated all their address books for them.

    9. Re:Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like Facebook recently added an email address for everyone in the form FacebookID@facebook.com. They then set this as the default contact email address within the online web-based directory for all of your friends. This change was then pushed out to people's smart phones (if you had the FB app set to sync with your phone contacts), but accidently *overwrote* the default email address for each contact entry, which would be in the form Some.Handle@someisp.com.

      Stupid yes, but that's what you get.

    10. Re:Dipshits by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      Yet still you have a Facebook account. Why exactly should they set the bar higher if all their screw-ups do is get them more free publicity?

      Every time FB fucks up, the online world whines like it is the end of life as we know it. All you're doing is confirming to FB that you're addicted and can't live without them.

      Why again should they change? You're their bitch and they like it that way.

      Because one day Google might get their act together and properly market their social network, to the point where Facebook actually has real competition. I attended the first day of Google I/O and was pretty disappointed that they did nothing to address Google+ being an utter ghost town. All they did was focus on this "events" feature, and "party mode". It's a nice addition, but it still isn't going to get people I care about to use the network. I'm thinking all they have to do is start posting up billboards/posters and host contests.. even bribe people to use their social network. Then it'll take off, and Facebook will start getting serious. I have to believe there's SOMEONE at Google with the brains and the influence to act on this. Google tends to do dramatic things suddenly, so I give them about a year to show up on the radar. You want to know how comfy Facebook is right now? They don't have a QA department. A manager at Facebook told me this outright about 3-4 months ago. I doubt it's changed since then. They just code something, and trust their developers to assure it's okay, and they go ahead and put the things into production. So when Facebook screws up, or something looks horribly wrong, it's because they know no one has anywhere else to go while they're fixing it. That massive concern about "100% uptime" that we saw in Social Network is no longer there, because Facebook is well beyond critical mass, and yes, over half the planet is a monopoly.

    11. Re:Dipshits by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      You're their bitch and they like it that way.

      "Mmmm, unt we like it that way too. Make my email cpu38499@facebook.com again. Do it even though I already set a username, then tell me the only way to change it back is to set my username. Then stop me from changing my username HARDER.... SO GOOD. Now flip me over unt use my profile pic to advertise to my friends."

    12. Re:Dipshits by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > Does Facebook hire monkeys to do their coding?

      Hey, don't insult primates. These guys http://www.newtechusa.com/ppi/talent.asp would be a step up over Facebook's programmers.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    13. Re:Dipshits by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I'd say the marketing department is interfering with things they don't understand.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    14. Re:Dipshits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook's programmers have made one mistake after another. I first noticed it when they started redirecting my tablet from the www. to the mobile site. Bastards. They shouldn't be forcing me to a site I don't want to use.

      Then they changed my email to cpu6502@facebook.com. And now this story about the programmers erasing cellphone data "by mistake". Does Facebook hire monkeys to do their coding?

      They didn't change your fucking email. They changed which email you display to people who look at your Timeline. In fact, you cannot use the FB email as your primary account email, the option is simply not available. And it's not an email, it's an email gateway. And it's just your UserID@facebook.com, so anybody who can see your profile already knows it to start with.

      Yes, for people who DO show their real email to anybody visiting the timeline, it's a little irritating that you have to change it back so that people know your real email. But to be perfectly blunt, people are slamming on FB for privacy and the one time they screw up and remove personal information from public view, dicks like you cry about it even harder.

    15. Re:Dipshits by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I think it's really funny that people think they are not paying FB for access. They are taking your personal information from you (which has value) and selling that to advertisers.

      So no, FB is not free.

    16. Re:Dipshits by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      You are paying for Facebook -- just not with dollar bills.

      Me, I never had a Facebook account at all, and I don't think I'm missing out.

    17. Re:Dipshits by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Facebook is trying to MITM everyone's email. Step 1: they changed listed email addresses to be username@Facebookmail.com, then his references to prior default email addresses. So anyone looking to send you an email might find it on FB to be the FB email (which redirects to your normal mail after a healthy scanning and storage). But that wasn't enough because people didn't need to check each other's emails very often (if they're already friends, they often have them in their address books). So Step 2: delete emails when people sync address books, forcing them to find the username@facebookmail.com addresses. Step 3 is data mining.

  5. BUG?? by grcumb · · Score: 1

    Sorry, 'bug'? Isn't that a bit like saying a behavioural 'bug' caused Facebook to kick my grandmother in the shin? (Which I don't doubt they would do if there was money in it.)

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    1. Re:BUG?? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, 'bug'? Isn't that a bit like saying a behavioural 'bug' caused Facebook to kick my grandmother in the shin? (Which I don't doubt they would do if there was money in it.)

      I'm under the impression it was originally planned to replace all your contacts email addresses with the new and improved friendxyz@facebook.com email addresses .. so they can, you know, route all of your email and use it for harvesting yet more information from you.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:BUG?? by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      I'm under the impression it was originally planned to replace all your contacts email addresses with the new and improved friendxyz@facebook.com email addresses .. so they can, you know, route all of your email and use it for harvesting yet more information from you.

      The scary thing is that I think you're absolutely right. If this is the case, though, then they're going way beyond what they should be allowed to do.

  6. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a bug, it's a feature!

    (No really, it is)

  7. Bug? by Parafilmus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems a bit disingenuous to call this a "bug."

    The API was operating as designed: when a friend lists a new email address, my address book is updated to reflect it. That's normal behavior.

    The "bug" in this case was Facebook's decision to modify their users' contact info without permission. The API is not to blame here.

    1. Re:Bug? by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

      +1

    2. Re:Bug? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Do you mean "like"? Or perhaps "want"?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Bug? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Highly unethical. They have no business changing data under user control. At least here (Switzerland) it may actually be a criminal act to do so without asking permission ("Datenbeschaedigung").

      At the same time, it was also utterly incompetent, because you do no change important data on devices you do not control without being extremely careful. As in making backups.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Bug? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      It seems a bit disingenuous to call this a "bug."

      The API was operating as designed: when a friend lists a new email address, my address book is updated to reflect it. That's normal behavior.

      I can't quite tell if you're being a bit sarcastic. What happened was that the API overwrote the current email in the phones' address books with the most recently email added to the Facebook contact.

      In the majority of cases, those who allowed their Blackberry, Android, iOS6 beta and Windows Phone 8 beta phones to sync their contacts with Facebook, have had the originally stored email addresses overwritten. The lucky ones had their contacts duplicated - with the new ones containing the @facebook email addresses.

      It's plausible to me that they intended the API to add the new email instead of overwriting, so this could be a bug.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    5. Re:Bug? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "bug" in this case was Facebook's decision to modify their users' contact info without permission.

      Nonsense. You gave them persmission when you enabled "syncing". Only a fool would allow an advertising agency with which they have no contract to not only run unaudited software on a computer containing their only copy of important data but also permit that software write access to the data.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fool would allow an advertising agency..

      Most people are fools.

    7. Re:Bug? by CodeHxr · · Score: 0

      Truth.

    8. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trevor Babcock, consider the Facebook status a relationship deal-breaker. "I'm not willing to date anyone exclusively unless she feels comfortable going Facebook-public," he says.

      I thought the above quote was bad until...

      "It was after cocktails but before the first course at dinner," says Mrs. Weise-King. Still in their bridal attire, the couple whipped out their iPhones — they'd done a test run ahead of time and determined that they had to use the web browser and not the simple iPhone app — and switched status in front of bemused wedding guests. (They also uploaded a photo.) Throughout the rest of the night, Weise-King would occasionally glance down at her Facebook profile, "the way I'd glance at my ring when I first got engaged." Their status has not changed since.

      Sickening.

    9. Re:Bug? by kidgenius · · Score: 2

      Agreed. This is not a bug. It is an unintended consequence of the choices they made. The API is syncing as you would expect. When an email address changes, it updates to change to the new address. What FB didn't realize was that when they defaulted everyone's email address to their own, that when their sync occurs, it would do exactly what they had expected it to do. Someone just didn't think that this would cause a problem when it trickled down.

    10. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misunderstanding what was said. He is talking about Facebook's decision to modify the user's facebook contact information. The syncer agreed to sync the information, but his friend did not agree to have his email changed to the @facebook.com email that overwrote the other email.

    11. Re:Bug? by bruno.fatia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that same sentence could apply to Google with Android OS? Only that they do have full root control on your phone.

      PS: I do use an Android phone with sync to Google servers.

    12. Re:Bug? by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Bugs do not "happen" when you have a supposed active userbase of 10% of 7 billion people.
      Coders first test ANYTHING major in a contained lab environment. Then they stage this. Eventually they roll out to maybe a tech team or two within the company. When happy, they roll out country by country. Don't believe me? Remember when EVERYONE wanted Google Buzz but you had to wait your turn for this update to reach your particular account? Irrelevant? then remember that Facebook timeline itself was slowly rolled out too. So they're not just randomly seeing bugs.

      Because you very well know that 1 production change cannot be undone when it's out of staging. After all, App makers like zinga and all have revenue to worry about, and a userbase of 500 million isn't something that would they'd think better before going overwriting things in a way that would kill their userbase. If that's the app makers, then you well know the App store / platform API providers will take their business seriously. Everything else is just backslash due to stupid decisions. Facebook is by now expected to do something NASTY every year, so they by know Zuck's gathered enough "bad publicity" feedback that he knows people won't walk out. They got no other virtual roof to take all their FB connections because network effect only works when there's a new and "better" network to move to.

    13. Re:Bug? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      What you say (in the first paragraph) makes sense. I would very much hope that FB does as much or more debugging and testing as other tech companies. But as much as I suspect FB of being insidious, I find it hard to believe they would knowingly release code which would irrevocably erase/overwrite users' contacts email addresses. They would basically have to be as cynical and sociopathic as traders at Goldman Sachs, which I suppose is entirely possible.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    14. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has permission to access the Contacts ContentProvider, you give it to them when you purchased the phone with it preinstalled or installed FaceBook app it clearly states the permissions required to run.

      You ignored them.

    15. Re:Bug? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The "bug" in this case was Facebook's decision to modify their users' contact info without permission. The API is not to blame here.

      You're close.

      Facebook simply thought with the fantastic services they offer everyone would be delighted that they would be able to use facebook for their e-mail needs as well. The bug was that they didn't realise that there are a few, probably just a highly vocal minority of their users, that doesn't consider Facebook the be-all and end-all for their communications.

      And personally, I'm still hoping for a viable competitor to rise.

    16. Re:Bug? by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 1

      You could conceivably ask for deportation of Mark Zuckerberg from the US to compensate for Julian Assange, you know, if need arises.

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    17. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have no business changing data under user control.

      The user granted the application the permissions to do so when they voluntarily installed it.

      The user has no cause for complaint.

    18. Re:Bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "bug" in this case was Facebook's decision to modify their users' contact info without permission. The API is not to blame here.

      It only modified the email address you have displayed in your timeline. The bug is that it wasn't supposed to change it if you already had an email listed in the timeline, but in this case it did.
      And it didn't delete your friends from your contacts list, the email changed from what they had listed to the @facebook email. So more than likely you suddenly have more emails listed than you used to in your phone list.
      And if the person hasn't switched to timeline yet, it didn't do jack shit.

      Yes, it was a little irritating to take the 20 seconds to put my public email back into my Timeline. Big fucking deal, they gave my new FB email gateway address to people who I've already given my private email, oh noes.

      And on a side note, anybody who actually installs the FB app has got rocks in their head to start with. Same goes for the gmail app. You gave it permission to fuck with your contacts list, that was a stupid move.

    19. Re:Bug? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You could say that it was a bad design to not give phone owners control over WHICH email addresses Facebook could update.

      That is the problem with accept-or-don't-install permission systems. You end up with either not using an app at all, or giving it access to modify anything in your contacts. Why not have an in-between setting like - allow the app to add info to contacts and modify the info it adds, but not touch what is already there? Then when the app asks for unconditional access give the user the ability to grant the reduced access instead?

      The permissions systems on OSes like Android seem outdated. Arguments in their favor seem analogous to arguing that we don't need pre-emptive multitasking and process separation because users simply shouldn't run applications that crash the system.

    20. Re:Bug? by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      But, google have promised to do no evil.

  8. The real issue is with permissions by sabri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While a lot of people (and trolls) will bash Facebook and its coders, the real issue here is the broken permissions system on Android and Iphone.

    When you install an application such as Facebook, you are forced to grant more permissions than is good for you, opening up your phone for bugs like this. Those permission systems should be fixed (as well as the bug).

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:The real issue is with permissions by bbecker23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Permissions Denied has always worked well for me in limiting unwanted permissions. Admittedly, a third-party app shouldn't be needed for this, but solutions are out there.

      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stericson.permissions&hl=en

      --
      cat /dev/random > sig.txt
    2. Re:The real issue is with permissions by gweihir · · Score: 2

      While a lot of people (and trolls) will bash Facebook and its coders, the real issue here is the broken permissions system on Android and Iphone.
       

      No. Not really. Whenever you want to change date under user control you a) ask them first and b) be very, very careful, and make a full backup of the old data. At least any halfway competent developer or sysadmin knows that. True, most screw-ups have multiple causes, as does this. But the fact remains that Facebook demonstrated extreme incompetence and complete disregard for their users here, and they did if motivated by greed. That is completely unacceptable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case I don't think that's the underlying problem: even if it were opt-in, a lot of users would opt in to syncing email addresses, because in the normal case that's what they want. If a friend leaves company A and goes to company B, updating the address in your phone is convenient. What's less convenient is Facebook changing their email address when the old one was still valid and the friend didn't actually remove it...

    4. Re:The real issue is with permissions by mlts · · Score: 3, Informative

      On Android, I would recommend LBE Privacy Guard (requires root) to ensure FB keeps its sticky fingers out of the contacts.

      On iOS, it requires jailbreaking, but there is a Cydia app called PMP or Protect My Privacy which will allow FB to have what it thinks is a contact list... when in reality, it is getting randomly generated garbage.

      Either way, FB gets nothing that it shouldn't have if you know what you are doing.

    5. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      On iOS, rather than jailbreaking, you can just wait until later this month when iOS 6 comes out, since it has built-in controls for granting/restricting each application's access to your contacts.

    6. Re:The real issue is with permissions by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      While a lot of people (and trolls) will bash Facebook and its coders, the real issue here is the broken permissions system on Android and Iphone.

      The only iPhone users affected are the ones running the beta iOS6 who enabled Facebook integration.

      I'm glad this happened now - it will likely mean Facebook won't have carte blanche access throughout iOS 6.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very glad that I have a Windows Phone. :)

    8. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iOS 6 isn't expected out until this fall. If you are meaning the betas, if one is part of Apple's development program, that means they are under a NDA with Apple, and will be technically violating it by posting about it here.

    9. Re:The real issue is with permissions by soulcontrarian · · Score: 1

      No, the real issue here is that Facebook's coders messed up people's contacts and deserve to be bashed and sent some boxes of bananas. Besides, in order to synchronise your contacts you would have to grant those permissions anyway.

      As if it was not enough that my phone came with Facebook pre-installed and I cannot remove it without rooting and (supposedly) voiding the warranty. Not to mention it sleeps in the background all the time even though I never used it.

    10. Re:The real issue is with permissions by grolschie · · Score: 1

      I was quite surprise when using the FB app on my Nokia Belle (Symbian^3) phone, to discover that my phone's contacts' photos had been populated from FB. I don't recall giving permission for this app to access my phone's address book. I certainly hope that the data goes only one-way (i.e from FB to phonebook, and not phonebook to FB). :-/

    11. Re:The real issue is with permissions by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      [snip]...When you install an application such as Facebook, you are forced to grant more permissions than is good for you...[snip]

      Disagree. You aren't forced into anything. No one is forcing you to install Facebook on your phone.

    12. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't iOS 4 and 5 had this for awhile now? I seem to remember being able to allow and deny applications access to location data. Is that the only limit you can place on an app, or does iOS 6 make it easier by reorganizing the restrictions, or does it introduce completely new restrictions?

    13. Re:The real issue is with permissions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When you install an application such as Facebook, you are forced to grant more permissions than is good for you

      Well, maybe. I've noted that for two apps that do the same thing there may be wildly varying scope of permissions. Also, nobody is forcing you to grant those permissions. You can instead not use the facebook App. Since my only Android device runs 2.1 (I know, I know) the facebook app just opens my browser anyway, and that interface is fucking awful but it does work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:The real issue is with permissions by bhagwad · · Score: 0

      Not sure about this. If I install programs on my PC, they can access all my files. I want it that way. It's my job to ensure that I only install from known sources and run software that I trust. Why should phones be any different?

    15. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the permission system is broken but for another reason - on Android unless you give an app all permissions it wants it would not run. You click cancel and you are presented with the same permissions dialog, so your two options are - click ok and give permissions or do not use the app at all.

    16. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about 6, but iOS 4 and 5 allow per app the ability for determining location and being able to send notifications. However, slurping up E-mail, pictures, or contacts is A-OK.

    17. Re:The real issue is with permissions by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It comes pre-installed, so you don't need to install it. And even better - it is marked as non-removable.

      At least that's true of every smartphone I've seen in the last 3 years.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    18. Re:The real issue is with permissions by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      And iOS 6 builds the Facebook apps into iOS, so you won't be able to remove it OR deny it access to your contact information, because it will literally be part of Contacts.app!

      Wait, shit.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    19. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No crap. My wife just bought a smartphone and I can't believe all the crap on it.

      Someone needs to file a lawsuit against the phone carriers for (1) false advertising (pertaining to the actual available amount of memory on the phone) and (2) forcing exposure to malware. Make the carrier liable for losses. Facebook screwed up, but the phone carrier bears some responsibility also.

    20. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit making shit up. You can select exactly what the FB portion of iOS 6 has access to within the settings. Looking at that page in the beta right now.

    21. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On iOS, rather than jailbreaking, you can just wait until later this month when iOS 6 comes out, since it has built-in controls for granting/restricting each application's access to your contacts.

      Or you could get a blackberry, which had that functionality 7 or 8 years ago.

    22. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Aside from iOS 6 having Facebook integration, none of what you said is true.

      The Facebook integration iOS 6 is adding is like the Twitter integration they added in iOS 5. You can log in from one place in your global settings, and then share content from a number of places throughout the device. The device will be pulling your friends from Facebook and making them visible in your Contacts app, but that information isn't flowing the other way by default, meaning that Facebook doesn't get free access to your contacts. As for removing it, it's entirely optional to enable it in the first place, and if you decide you don't like it, you can simply disable it later.

    23. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, the argument used to be that good applications have idle loops that yield and are deigned to not hang in event handlers.

      Then somebody came along and built pre-emptive multitasking and process separation into the OS, so that we can run systems with more than three applications on them and not have to reboot the thing every 20 minutes.

      Buggy apps are bad. Poor OS design is worse.

    24. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      True, but the defect in this case is not having sufficient privilege granularity. A user should be able to grant access to Facebook to add info to contacts and modify the info it maintains, but require explicit approval to modify content that is managed elsewhere. All-or-nothing isn't the right solution.

    25. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A good OS protects the overall integrity of the system from misbehaving applications.

      Imagine if Android didn't use pre-emptive multitasking, but instead had a permission of "allow application to run in background." These tasks would have to yield time back to the OS for anything else to run. When your phone ends up hanging every 20 minutes would you still say that it was your choice to install apps that run in the background?

      Software WILL have bugs. Software that is well-behaved today WILL get an update that causes it to misbehave tomorrow. The OS needs to acknowledge imperfection and deal with it. Take-it-or-leave-it security just ticks people off.

    26. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Or, maybe there is a choice other than using an application with a suboptimal experience, or using a lousy interface?

      I use LBE Privacy Guard. It blocks most of the more intrusive application behaviors but still lets me use the applications (unlike alternative implementations like CyanogenMod's, which usually just crashes the applications and the people who add it insist that you shouldn't be using it anyway).

      Take-it-or-leave-it is a lousy design, and it is an unnecessary one. When displaying the user a list of permissions let them select which ones to grant, and the API should not allow an application to reliably detect which permissions were granted, so that they can't cause bugs. If you don't grant access to contacts, then the application doesn't see any contacts, and if they add new ones they go into a private namespace that nothing else sees. If you don't grant access to location, then the GPS is "turned off" 24x7. If you don't grant access to the network then there is no network service. That keeps app designers from "punishing" users who block access (believe it or not I've seen this kind of behavior).

    27. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      This is a lousy design. Why do you think worms and botnets are such a problem? You assume that software from "trusted" sources never contains flaws, and that there are only two levels of trust - all or none.

      Imagine that when you double-click on a PDF file in an email your PDF viewer launches in a jail with permissions that include only being able to open that PDF file. Then it doesn't matter how many vulnerabilities that viewer contains - it can't tamper with my system or send a copy of my data to who-knows-where.

      Why should my spreadsheet app be able to edit my .bashrc? Why should it be able to open arbitrary network connections?

      There are many benefits from systems that provide more granular security. The challenge has been in making these permissions easy to manage. If anything PCs are moving more in the direction of what has been happening with phones, and I welcome this.

    28. Re:The real issue is with permissions by MacDork · · Score: 1

      the real issue here is the broken permissions system on Android and Iphone.

      I don't have an app permission system on my desktop, yet it gets along just fine. The real issue is the real issue: Lousy quality control. Some PHB decided to make a change in business rules without evaluating/testing the impact it would have across their product line.

    29. Re:The real issue is with permissions by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I got the release date confused with Mountain Lion's release date, which is later this month.

  9. Hmmmmm... by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 0

    I know there's some reason people continue to use Facebook. I just have a hard time imagining what it is.

    --
    ---------------------------------------
    Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
    1. Re:Hmmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know there's some reason people continue to use Facebook. I just have a hard time imagining what it is.

      10 users 'like' this post.

    2. Re:Hmmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its because we live in the real world and have social lives.

    3. Re:Hmmmmm... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I think "because everyone is there" is a huge factor. You can find pretty much anyone and communicate easily. Reaching such a large volume of people would be extremely clunky without FB.

    4. Re:Hmmmmm... by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      I go to a lot of gigs, and am involved in putting on gigs, and radio shows. I use facebook to follow bands, find out what's happening, prod the manager of the local gig-pub and also track events.

      Love it or hate it facebook seamlessly integrates all of the above in a way that the traditional wider "this is my web page" internet never has. Microformats are pushing close to that but the drummer in a band doesn't know shit about HTML or microformats, they just want to shove some pictures of the gig on "the internet" and post an event for next saturday and invite a bunch of people who they know will spread the words to their mates.

      Sometimes, admittedly, I do post pictures of food on it.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  10. Wow, thanks by Georules · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thanks for the heads-up. I promptly uninstalled the facebook app from my phone. I have way too many email addresses in my contacts that I can't afford to lose. My contacts aren't just my contacts on my phone, I use those contacts for gmail. Facebook is going to have to find a really good reason for me to care to reinstall the app.

    1. Re:Wow, thanks by IsoRashi · · Score: 1

      I uninstalled FB from my phone as much as I could a year or so ago. I specifically went out of my way to disable check-ins and the like as much as I could, yet I noticed that every time I fired up the FB app, it would engage my gps for a good 30 seconds. So I uninstalled all the updates, logged out, and now use the mobile web interface if I need to. Yeah I still use FB, but I don't really trust them at all.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    2. Re:Wow, thanks by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Use LBE Privacy Guard. You can control individual permissions like location detection and such. Don't ask Facebook to not check in - just block its access to the location API.

  11. Thanks Google by bazald · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the first time, I appreciate your API changes which broke direct contact synchronization through the Facebook app.

    --
    Insert self-referential sig here.
  12. Incompetents by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is why you do not change data under your user's control, without a) giving them a warning and ask them to opt-in and b) making backups. Any halfway competent software engineer or system administrator knows that. Apparently, Facebook does not have such people and is still half-assing it. These people are really a disgrace.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Incompetents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US culture is "opt-out", European culture (and by LAW in many cases) is "opt-in".

      See the problem here? Yes, it is the US mentality of F YOU.

    2. Re:Incompetents by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Any halfway competent software engineer or system administrator knows that.

      But does Marketing know that?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  13. Demand a refund. by vlm · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think they should demand a refund of their subscription fee.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  14. the bizarre part of FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's the really bizarre thing.

    Of my FB using friends (eg most of them), about 80% claim to hate Facebook. Yet, they continue to use it. It's like abused-wife syndrome or something. They all go on and on about how it sucks, but they keep going back to him because maybe this time he won't hit me.

    It looks to me surely like they are insane. I seem to do just fine iwthout using Facebook at all. I still have a social life, I still interact with my friends online, I still chat w/ ppl and email them, I still know what's going on.

    So why the fuck do people keep using it, if they hate it so much? It seems like some weird case of otherwise smart ppl suddenly becoming dumb as rocks.

    1. Re:the bizarre part of FB by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It s not that Facebook is cool, it's that social networking is cool, and there is no other realistic alternative. If I (collective I, I personally don't use facebook) have something to share to a group, Facebook is the simplest and the widest audience.

    2. Re:the bizarre part of FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Share with a group? Like the World Wide Web was doing for a decade and a half before Facebook appeared on the scene? Like email was doing for decades before that?

    3. Re:the bizarre part of FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear you've never actually used facebook, because anyone that's not a mouth breather doesn't give two shits about your content because it's lost in the sea of piss that is typical of lusers (thinking people care about their petty dramas, ignorant political rantings, etc.) Really the only excuse to use it is for actual networking, not sharing content. Twitter is much better for broad communication/sharing with an audience, and even then they fucked it up with advertising and paid tweets. In fact today there was buzz about "twitter without twitter", open standards communication and not having to deal with a company that does more harm to the platform than good because profits.

    4. Re:the bizarre part of FB by Nyder · · Score: 0

      It s not that Facebook is cool, it's that social networking is cool, and there is no other realistic alternative. If I (collective I, I personally don't use facebook) have something to share to a group, Facebook is the simplest and the widest audience.

      Social Networking isn't cool.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:the bizarre part of FB by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      They all go on and on about how it sucks, but they keep going back to him because maybe this time he won't hit me.

      You don't understand. Facebook is going through a really tough time, what with the IPO going so bad and the stock price tanking. It's been really tough for Facebook, he's under a lot of stress. I mean, sure's he's done this kind of thing before, but that was a long time ago, when he was younger. He's more mature now, and got himself listed on a proper stock exchange. I'm sure things will settle down in the future. He loves me you know, much more than MySpace or Google+ ever did. He even told me he couldn't survive without me. If I left he'd fade away into obscurity and never reach the potential I know is in there.

      [3 months late.]

      You don't understand. He missed his quarterly earnings number by 3 points. He's under a lot of stress to monetize his data. He didn't mean to store all my data in plain text on a public facing server, but he had to cut costs. He loves me. Just look at how he auto-identifies me in all my pictures. He wouldn't do that if he didn't, deep down, care about me in a meaningful way.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:the bizarre part of FB by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      I don't get what's cool about it either... really. Most of these social networks are collections of people you would never actually socialise with in person even if you could.

      It's like the yearbook club has taken over the school.

      If it wasn't so ridiculous I'd think it was a Buffy episode and any moment now we'll get the big reveal where Fuckerberg is doing blood magic to get signups.

    7. Re:the bizarre part of FB by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Share with a group? Like the World Wide Web was doing for a decade and a half before Facebook appeared on the scene? Like email was doing for decades before that?

      Yes, except that if I post it on the WWW, the people I intend to share it with will never see it (unless maybe I spam them all with email they probably don't want, telling them to go to my web site). I post it to Facebook, and I don't even have to keep track of who I wanted to share it with; all the right people will just see it.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  15. Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the prob by Jthon · · Score: 2

    The Facebook bug here is that if you ask Facebook for someone's email, it was returning the last one added which was that stupid @facebook.com email. But why was the phone deleting contact info and replacing it? If your only source of contact data for a person was their Facebook email then yeah I can see that swapping, but why isn't the phone keeping Facebook, and other contact info separate?

    My phone shouldn't see Facebook info change, then go and delete the work email from my Google contacts, or phone contact. If these phones are doing that I'd argue you have a phone SW bug. I wouldn't want any random sync service to suddenly override my manually entered contact data.

    As for people complaining about work emails being swapped, why do you sync work emails via facebook? You should have that entered into a separate place. My Android phone is smart enough to keep google contacts and facebook contacts separate, and merge the accounts for display purposes. (And my old Palm Pre back in the day did an even better job of this.)

  16. Facebook and wooden talking rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because I like facebook's free service

    Can someone explain what service that is?

    Because all I've ever heard is stuff like, "I can chat w/ my friends on FB". Well, I can chat with them without FB too. Or, "I can learn where the party this w/e is gonna be". Well, I seem to learn that without FB. I've so far never seen something people claim they use FB for that doesn't work just fine if FB never even existed. I mean, jeez luise - people were going to parties and talking to family online before FB ever existed. Or, "It lets me find my highschool buds!" Which I did just fine without ever touching FB.

    It's like someone suddenly sold every human being a wooden ring to place over their mouth and convinced them they couldn't talk to anyone without using this ring. So people buy these and walk around talking to people by placing the ring over their mouths, because hey, the rings let us go to parties and talk to friends and be social!one!! If you don't have one of these rings, you must be some weird antisocial weirdo who never talks to anyone! Except that people were talking to each other for the last million years without those rings and it worked fine, and plenty of don't even have a ring and seem to do everything the ring-people are doing, and without having to pay for the ring. It's completely unnecessary, but some mass insanity convinced everyone they needed it.

    It makes no fucking sense.

    1. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by webXtasy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I can chat w/ my friends on FB"

      Agreed, definitely not the best (and far from only) thing for that.

      "I can learn where the party this w/e is gonna be".

      Agreed, definitely not the best (and far from only) thing for that.

      "It lets me find my highschool buds!"

      Sure, but if FB wasn't considerably more effective at this (i.e., you find a much higher percentage of folks you went to school with), it's because you have only three friends slashdork. It's more like, find the high school chic I had a huge crush on. You know so I can stalk her like never before, because, since we were high school friends (and I'm not in jail or something), it must be cool to let me know where she is and post pictures of herself with her new puppy and her pajamas.

      The truth is, I remain on FB because it's extremely popular with the teenagers (which I have three). I damn sure can't just let them use the thing without educating them about the risks and consequences (and checking / fixing privacy settings every fucking week).

      I'd be a dick to tell them they can't use it because I don't trust them or FB. I'm the guy that fixes and explains everything. It's what they expect and deserve.

      They will have way more of this to deal with in the future than you can imagine (please get a clue before having children (or don't)). It may be a major pain in my ass to make sure that their cellphones aren't geo-tagging photos, they aren't just accepting everyone as friends, they post appropriately, and all sorts of things. It's my job as a parent to NOT tell them "NO SEX! NO VIOLENCE! NO DRUGS!" It's my job to educates them and teach them in a way that enables them to be good and safe AND PROTECTED citizens when I am no longer doing these things WITH them (e.g., my son knows how to install and _for-the-most-part_ maintain his machine with both windows and *my preferred linux*).

      Anyway, Fuck FB.

      And Fuck you slashdork. Grow some balls and own the technology.

    2. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone explain what service that is?

      A confortable way to bully other kids and harass girls.

    3. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      The truth is, I remain on FB because it's extremely popular with the teenagers (which I have three). I damn sure can't just let them use the thing without educating them about the risks and consequences (and checking / fixing privacy settings every fucking week).

      That would be fine, except that the only way to win with Facebook is not to play. You don't allow and engage in harmful activity (like, for example, drugs) just to not be a dick, right?

    4. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by webXtasy · · Score: 1

      The truth is, I remain on FB because it's extremely popular with the teenagers (which I have three). I damn sure can't just let them use the thing without educating them about the risks and consequences (and checking / fixing privacy settings every fucking week).

      That would be fine, except that the only way to win with Facebook is not to play. You don't allow and engage in harmful activity (like, for example, drugs) just to not be a dick, right?

      Fair enough.

    5. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ease of use. For most normal, non-technical people, Facebook makes communication orders of magnitude easier than other ways of using the Internet (and orders of magnitude richer and faster than communicating without the Internet). As a technical person, you probably don't have that experience.

      Further, a typical techie wouldn't recognize true ease of use if it was fucking him up the arse. Almost all developers I've met have a view of computers so diverged from that of normal people that they can't produce, appreciate or even detect UI that works for normal humans. It's like the ability to code effectively entrains brain damage.

      So yes, Facebook probably has nothing to offer you but that doesn't stop it being useful to 99% of the world.

    6. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the service FB provides makes no sense to you, then I suggest you also not try to understand what service Twitter, Google, your local mall, and wal-mart offer.
      Seriously dude, if you don't understand why people value a one-stop shop, then there simply isn't any hope of ever explaining it to you.

    7. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are into SEX VIOLENCE AND DRUGS with your children that is a bit screwed.

    8. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      For most normal, non-technical people,

      MUTEX

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    9. Re:Facebook and wooden talking rings by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>I can chat with them without FB too.

      No you can't. If I went over to Usenet or Livejournal or Myspace and posted my latest status (going on vacation!), my friends would not see it because they are not members of those other websites. Therefore I post it on facebook where my friends, coworkers, colleagues are located.

      Plus sending out 1000 emails isn't very practical. And would be labeled spam.

      >>>Or, "It lets me find my highschool buds!" Which I did just fine without ever touching FB.

      I tried but came-up with nothing... especially since many people use fake aliases, or married names, instead or real names. FB made it as easy to find HS and college students as typing names from the yearbook. And there they were.

      FB also lets you discover people with similar interests. Like videogames or politics or music or......

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  17. So how is your Facebook stock doing anyway? by russbutton · · Score: 1

    So how is your Facebook stock doing anyway?

  18. Re:Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the pr by ZosX · · Score: 1

    This is why backups are important.....

  19. Calling all lawyers! Calling all lawyers! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Make yourselves useful for once - go after Facebook. I, for one, will be cheering you on.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Calling all lawyers! Calling all lawyers! by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      This would please a great many of us, I'm sure.

  20. Re:Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the pr by ZosX · · Score: 1

    Android Phone ----> Contacts -----> Menu -----> Import/Export ------> Export to SD Card -----> Peace of mind

  21. Problem Solved by Default+UserOne · · Score: 1

    I found the easiest solution is to delete my Facebook account. I've been with Facebook since invites were needed but this was the final straw. It's crazy to trust a privately traded company with ALL of my personal information but to abuse the information like this is inexcusable. If this is how they treat my personal information then I have no interest in providing them any more opportunities.

  22. blessing in disguise? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

    it looks to me like this might already be fixed (at least if they're rolling out in stages i got a fix update it seems) and better yet all my contacts synced from FB have their email addresses reverted back to their real addresses and not that shit @facebook.com address. maybe this "glitch" was some real damage control for that email address fiasco?

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    1. Re:blessing in disguise? by Aelyew · · Score: 1

      In order to reverse this modification, it means that Facebook has retained a copy of your original contact list. Most likely FB has numerous timestamped versions of their users contact lists. For most professionals it is standing operating procedure to take backups before doing any modifications. However while that tidbit is probably not surprising to slashdotters, it may come as a surprise to the average Facebooker how much information FB is collecting over time.

    2. Re:blessing in disguise? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      i fully expected them to keep the old email addresses, so you're right it's not surprising. i figured they just changed what was displayed on the page. every one of my contacts on facebook has had their email reverted (last i checked most had not done so even though i asked them to) while a friend of mine says he still has a lot of the @facebook.com addresses on his friends' info. not sure if there's a rollout going on or if my friends actually reset theirs. it'd be nice to know what's going on with it.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  23. Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I closed my account just before the IPO in order to protect myself from the Facebook-That-Will-Be.

    Nice to know I've already dodged one bullet with my contact list.

  24. Glad they fixed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had this very same issue after I uninstalled the Facebook app. In 2009. No time like the present!

  25. Drunk by detritus. · · Score: 1

    So how's hiring drunk coders working out for you, Mark?

    1. Re:Drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? What did this add to the discussion that the other dozen people above you saying 'LOL FACEBOOK HIRES RETARDS' didn't. Sad that your UID is so low, you bring nothing to slashdot.

    2. Re:Drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mad, bro?

  26. I'm surprised Facebook by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    Since you have access to a phone's contacts: I'm surprised you didn't skim phones for them, and add them as friends automatically.

    1. Re:I'm surprised Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the data for the 'People You May Know' feature comes from?

  27. Re:Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the pr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the version changes and you can no longer import them.

  28. Another Facebook bug? by ageedoy · · Score: 1

    Not surprising considering their lack of a software QA team.

  29. Re:Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the pr by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    Nice bit of FUD there.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  30. Export the email addresses while you can! by moonflower1 · · Score: 1

    Since there is no official way to export, why not use your rooted android device to do just that: http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/460827-how-export-your-friends-list-facebook-must-rooted.html#post4444672 Worked great for me, though, I used SQLite Database Browser on Ubuntu which is in the standard repositories.

  31. I knew this was a bad idea by ethergear · · Score: 1

    I uninstalled Facebook from my phone partly because it just would not stop begging me to let it see my contacts. Every update came back with an ad for how awesome syncing with Facebook was.

    Maybe I should go on FB and post another status complaining about Facebook.

  32. "We don't believe in effective QA; B*tch!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love,

    Mark

  33. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' or a copyright violation by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    Well, it deletes the data after sending it all to the Facebook servers. It is my understanding that the Facebook app checks each user in the address book to see if they are FB users, so it knows whether or not to re-write the email address. In the process it seems to make sense that each user's name/email address would have to be sent to FB so server could determine whether the user has FB or not. So it looks to me like a Saagan's worth of user data (millions and millions) was grabbed in the process. While my address book is in affect an anthology, it can be copywriter as such, and FB copying my address book and putting the data on one of their servers seems like a copyright violation to me.

  34. Re:BUG?? Two repercussions (or more) by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 2

    Changing your FB profile email address to the FB message system has the effect of quietly sending mail intended for you to the FB servers that hold their message traffic. If you are not in the habit of checking your FB message queue. That is very much like important email ending up in your junk mail folder, and you don't happen to see it. The other affect is that the email itself (which may have contained confidential information) is now sitting on the FB server and subject to being browsed by over enthusiastic admins. Not that it was ever wise to send email through their gateway to begin with. This man-in-the-middle attack, where they intercept and redirect your FB originated email will probably be found to be illegal, and I believe they did this to millions of users. Then there is the issue of the unexpected changing of the data in smartphone address books, very bad indeed.

  35. Re:Bug? The solution to US unemployment by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    If a billion users have to call FB at the same time to discuss what has happened to their address books, this will mean FB will have to hire a bunch of support people, at least temporarily to handle the support load. We should be thanking FB for making such a unique contribution to the US jobs situation.

  36. Re:blessing in disguise? Copyrighted Anthology by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    I have an entry in my address book that says "Copyright (C) 2012 Douglas Goodall. All Rights Reserved.". If FB took a copy of my address book, then they are GUILTY of copyright infringement. If they make any use of this data, then they are probably "Making Available" as the Hollywood Lawyers say. Everyone should add a copyright to their address books right away. IANABCL.

  37. Worse: haven't logged in for years, still changed by Maow · · Score: 2

    I bought an HTC Amaze 4G (aka Ruby?) from Wind Mobile in Canada and it had a Facebook app on it. Which was always running. When I killed the app and the service, it would come back, restarted by HTC Sense I suppose.

    The app's permissions were... everything. And I couldn't uninstall it.

    I hooked it up to my computer, set to "Internet Pass-through" and ran tcpdump - no sign of "phoning home". Back to the store for a return. I called HTC and told them why.

    But, after a couple more weeks of research (phoneless), I bought it again (the only phone I really liked) with the intention of rooting and removing FB app.

    Before I could though, I added a contact's phone & email. They later sent me an SMS and ... the contact had a photo. WTF?!? How'd that happen?

    Turns out it was the photo from that person's FB account. So the app did phone home, probably dumping all my contacts to the mothership. It certainly sent back my new contact's email and/or phone number.

    I'm still considering filing a complaint with Canada's Privacy Commissioner.

    Meanwhile ICS has been pushed out, so I set that app's data bandwidth cap to zero. Guess I'd better root the thing sooner rather than later.

  38. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm okay with this.

  39. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' or a copyright violation by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

    It was ruled that a phonebook is not copyrightable. I will let you fill in the rest.

    --
    Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
  40. With apologies to Arthur C Clarke ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  41. Re:Yea right a 'glitch' or a copyright violation by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    I would maintain that a phonebook is something that is widely distributed with no effort to protect it's contents. Most likely the phonebook also does not actually contain the copyright message. In the case of my address book, I have taken steps to protect the contents. I haven't published it. I have a password on my phone and on my laptop so casual users cannot access it and learn who is in it and the details of their contact information. It's purpose is to provide the data for me, and not for the public. While IANABCL, I am thinking this may be the difference whereby it would not be the same as a phonebook.

  42. In Soviet Russia... by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 1

    Email deletes you!

  43. Yeah, that sucked. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    It happened to me. I was pissed.

  44. Fallout of bad strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I dislike the "move fast and break things" strategy. Sometimes, what you break causes way too much collateral damage.

    While I'm not advocating that everyone needs to use the same change control as the Space Shuttle development process, a bit more forethought and a little less hacking is often called for.

  45. WinPhone 7 unaffected by NightLamp · · Score: 1

    Somehow nothing was affected in my Windows Phone 7 contacts list which amalgamates across: Exchange(x2), Facebook, MSN and Gmail.

    I feel like I should be angry at this but it just didn't affect me.

  46. devops agile? by Sadsfae · · Score: 1

    devops agile programming, yeah. stuff like this might reenforce the need for proper QA and testing and less rapid delivery agile mumbo crap people seem to be adopting nowadays. acceptable from a start-up perhaps, not a now tradeable social media giant.

    --
    Have a squat over at the hobo house.
  47. Facebook app is off my phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it. The facebook app is off my phone. luckily HTC allows me to disable built-in apps..

  48. Only one email per contact? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite independently of FB being slimy and incompetent, what's up with the FB email replacing the previous entry? Why isn't the new email added to the contact as a sibling of the existing one? Is FB calling the wrong API or is the API simplistic?

  49. Re:Not entirely a FB bug, phone software is the pr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the contacts in an open format? I don't know as I don't have an Android phone, but I've been screwed before by a failed import.

  50. Re:Worse: haven't logged in for years, still chang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it's not their Google profile picture too?

  51. Facebook app by phorm · · Score: 1

    While I personally don't care much for the idea of having a facebook app installed on my phone (I do use facebook, but the mobile interface works just fine and can't access my contacts etc), for some people the damn thing is installed stock on the phone. In some cases I've heard it can't even be removed without rooting, though that I can't confirm.

  52. Don't install that shi* by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    I had an android and made the mistake to install Facebook.
    It was so friendly to add my phone number to my profile within seconds. Thanks. That is one more bit of information that will never be deleted from the FB database.
    My apologies to everybody in my contact list that are also registered at FB now because of my stupid action. I should have known better...

    I'm so sorry :(

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  53. Re:Worse: haven't logged in for years, still chang by Maow · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it's not their Google profile picture too?

    When I emailed them a screen-shot of the image, she identified it as her FB profile pic.

    Pretty sure she doesn't have a Google+ account, and uses HotMail as primary email - if she has gmail, I don't know it.

    So, pretty sure that the unstoppable FB app is responsible.

  54. With Facebook, there is no such thing as data loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something missing on your phone? Just ask them to replace it. They no doubt still have it. :)

  55. Why not read-only access to contacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems strange the API gives write access to that, and who knows what else. Malicious apps will go crazy will write access to various parts of the phone.