Facebook Sued Over App Center Data Sharing In Germany
An anonymous reader sends this quote from an IDG News report:
"German consumer organizations are suing Facebook because the social network keeps sharing personal data with third-party app makers without getting explicit consent from users. Third party apps often want access to a users' chat as well as information about friends, personal contact information and the ability to post on a user's Facebook wall. But instead of asking users for permission, the apps available through Facebook's App Center just grant themselves access to the data, the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZBV), said on Thursday. ... In the past, Facebook asked for user consent by showing a pop-up window that warned data was shared with third-parties, and a user had the choice to click on allow or not allow. But when the App Center was introduced that changed, said Michaela Zinke, policy officer at the VZBV. 'I'm very confused why Facebook changed it,' she said, adding that before Facebook complied with German law and now doesn't anymore."
protector of the world?
You are correct. Don't use it if you don't like their policies.
No good deed goes unpunished.
That Facebook is so brazenly whoring out their bitches (their users) to the johns (aka "third-party app makers"), or that so many users so willingly lay down and take it. I'm all for legalizing prostitution, so I am a bit torn, but the metaphor kinda breaks down when "the bitches" are unaware of what's being done to them.
the subject line that continue to the body annoy the hell out everyone else as well?
In the past, Facebook asked for user consent by showing a pop-up window that warned data was shared with third-parties, and a user had the choice to click on allow or not allow. But when the App Center was introduced that changed, said Michaela Zinke, policy officer at the VZBV. 'I'm very confused why Facebook changed it,' she said, adding that before Facebook complied with German law and now doesn't anymore."
They doubtless changed it because too many people were clicking on "NO".
For a lot of us, successfully integrating into society, means having an FB account, just like having an email account. -snip- They might be big, but they offer a unique, necessary service, and should be regulated.
What a load of crock!
Society will run quite nicely without you spreading your personal life all over the net!
When you make your living off the public like as a politician, a top sporter or especially some Hollywood VIP you might have reasons for running a Twitter or Facebook account, for the rest of us it's plainly a liability.
I have helped a chef set up the privacy settings for his restaurant related FB account and it's a bloody nightmare, clueless friends and family keep dumping private information and it's near impossible to stop this nonsense.
So yes, for this lot at least the existing (EU) regulations should be upheld.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'm genuinely interested to know which areas you think the US is better in. As someone who lives in Europe, my perception is that neither the US government (any of its three branches) nor US big business has any interest at all in protecting the privacy of its own citizens, or pretty much any rights at all for anyone other than its own citizens.
This perception is based on a seemingly endless series of measures taken by those government arms (under whichever party/parties at the time) and businesses that seem to erode anything resembling individual rights in favour of the almighty state and/or corporate profit-making, regardless of any international standards, formal treaties, or in many cases even the obvious intent of the US Constitution.
I find the US to be a world leader in invading privacy. The sooner they stop exporting things like intrusive security theatre at airports and universal monitoring of citizens' communications to the rest of us, the better. (Of course, they only succeed in doing that because our own leaders are so spineless that they often accept it, citing nonsense like "special relationships" or the usual root keys to human rights law like terrorism or child abuse. I'm an equal opportunity government critic in this area, I just think the US often seems to cave to special interests first chronologically.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.