Slashdot Mirror


Why Does Facebook Need To Read My Text Messages?

DavidGilbert99 writes "Facebook updates its Android app quite a lot, but the latest version asks for some rather odd permissions. Rolling out in the UK this week, some users have noticed that it now wants permission to read your text messages. While most suspected Facebook wanted to access the data to try and serve you more targeted ads, Facebook says it is only so it can facilitate two-factor authentication...apparently."

293 comments

  1. Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why Does Facebook Need To Read My Text Messages?

    Because shut up, that's why. If you ever want to hear from your "friends" again, you'll do exactly what we say without question. I'm certain you know that either you or your friends are too stupid or lazy to start and follow privately-hosted blogs, so sit down, shut up, and continue giving us data to mine. Idiot.

    1. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe Zuckerberg refers to users as 'dumb fucks'

    2. Re:Obvious answer by siddesu · · Score: 1

      The only obvious answer is "because I'm too lazy". There are several options to both use a smartphone and social networks and have your privacy at your control, from installing a sensible third-party client to going full paranoid and installing OpenPDroid.

    3. Re:Obvious answer by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I would have said it makes it easier for the NSA to mine our data but yours works equally well.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay, my Facebook account is nothing but a fake name with fake details anyway, mine away suckersberg.

    5. Re:Obvious answer by Barbarian · · Score: 0

      Replying to undo accidental moderation.

    6. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A standard that allows people to have complete control over who can see what, and where it is stored, will be created in the interest of automating the flow and processing of transactions and data between businesses, and will subsequently be used as the protocol for social media. It will look like Namecoin.

    7. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also one of facebook's primary initial funders was InQtel, aka the CIA.

    8. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't. I revoke that permission on my phone, as well as full access to call logs, and the app still works just fine. Next task is to figure out what combination of location permissions I can revoke.

    9. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck facebook company fucknuts

    10. Re:Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK, we'll figure out who you really are once we've collected enough text messages and other third party data from your mobile devices.

      Zuckerburg.

    11. Re:Obvious answer by HnT · · Score: 1

      Also, Zuckerberg is the only user on facebook whom you CANNOT block. Try it. The site will give you some error and tell you to "try later" but it has not worked in the one or two years I have been trying.

      --
      "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    12. Re:Obvious answer by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      If I worked for facebook, I'd refer to users as "dumb fucks" too.

      No, I don't have any "friends". :(

  2. Why use their app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why anyone is using the official app instead of Tinfoil. It's open source and non-evil.
    I have Tinfoil installed, and I don't even have a Gmail account.

    1. Re:Why use their app? by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have tintoil installed and I don't even own any electronics.

    2. Re:Why use their app? by borcharc · · Score: 2

      I am more interested in why Google Play Services transmits my fine location, wifi-scan, cell scan, and GPS data 24/7.... Although FB has perms for lots of stuff, the logs on my phone report that is SMS has never been accessed. If you are rooted install AppOpsXposed and see for yourself.

    3. Re: Why use their app? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Because Google

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Why use their app? by jkflying · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So that Google can provide geolocation for devices without GPS by fingerprinting the signal strength patterns and access point names you see. They also use it for road traffic reports - where do you think Google Maps gets its traffic data from?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    5. Re:Why use their app? by heypete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So that Google can provide geolocation for devices without GPS by fingerprinting the signal strength patterns and access point names you see. They also use it for road traffic reports - where do you think Google Maps gets its traffic data from?

      Exactly. When I activated a new Nexus tablet it explained in plain language about the Google Location Reporting (how they get data for the wifi geolocation you mention) and ask whether or not one wishes to activate it or not.

      You can disable it in Settings --> Location --> Google Location Reporting. Turning GLR off does not interfere with other location-related things (for example, you can turn off GLR but still use the geolocation functions in Google Maps or other apps).

    6. Re:Why use their app? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 0

      and not only that, why does Google maps need to know my contact list, amongst other 'necessary' information?

      Security on Android is hopeless, until *we* can select which services an app has access to, rather than letting the app developer decide, there's little point to it.

    7. Re:Why use their app? by Andrio · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, you can do what I did, which was just create a shortcut to the mobile facebook website and place it on your homescreen. You get a nice looking icon that says "Facebook" under it, as if it were an actual app.

      Yeah, the app was "better," but at least I don't have to worry about what it's leaching from my phone (and consequently, hurting battery life/usng data)

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    8. Re:Why use their app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So that you can type your friend's name into the Maps search bar and get directions to their house.

    9. Re:Why use their app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have tintoil installed and I don't even own any electronics.

      So, you sent this comment using only mental power? :-)

  3. Actually one of my beefs by tthomas48 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Android needs to add two levels of permissions for much of this stuff. You basically have to ask for everything or nothing. I wanted to check network state in my current app, which requires asking for permission to change the user's networks. I don't want to change their networks. I just want to see if the network is up.

    1. Re:Actually one of my beefs by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that such granular permissions are too complex for most users to understand. It's not such a good security model. Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.

      Permissions are a very hard problem to solve, but I think the Android way of presenting them all up front at a high level does at least make it easy and most importantly very low time/irritation cost for the user to check them. Most people seem to be cottoning on to the fact that flashlight apps don't need network or phone access. Maybe power users could have a box to tick for extended granular permissions, but of course such users can get them via an app because they already have root.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Actually one of my beefs by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...while I agree, the next step is that applications start crashing when you revoke their permissions, or the authors simply refuse to let them run.

      Anyone who writes a program that makes its money by spying on you (while presenting you a game of Hearts), will simply stop dealing the cards when it can't read your text messages. HOSTS blocking already kills ads on a lot of software, but it's an arms race.

      The revenue model is the issue. We want 99 "free" apps.

    3. Re:Actually one of my beefs by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

      iOS does fine. Its not hard. Android's permission system is simply not intended to protect users, its intended to ensure users will accept any permissions so that Google can get access to all data for mining.

      As I said, iOS pretty much solved this a few years ago, Android has been nothing but excuses ever since.

      This is not a flaw in Android, it is an intentional design decision made by Google in order to accomplish THEIR goals, you are not the customer, you are the product.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen Android as a geek OS. I don't think anyone I know does.
      The geek mobile OSes are the ones the normals haven't even heard of.

    5. Re:Actually one of my beefs by tthomas48 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well Android does offer more way more granularity than iOS. I think iOS is nicer in the way it will prompt for a couple of the permissions. That said, iOS can't do many of the things android can, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

      Facebook can't read your texts on iOS because it's not possible. My app doesn't require a permission to access network state on iOS because my app can't change it anyway.

      It's easy to do security by simply stopping developers from being able to do things. Of course you just have to trust that Apple is doing all your security properly since there's no way to validate that fact.

    6. Re:Actually one of my beefs by tthomas48 · · Score: 3, Informative

      iOS has solved the problem of security in text messaging apps? In apps that allow innovative network access methods?

      Oh right. They haven't solved it, they just don't allow those apps.

    7. Re: Actually one of my beefs by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Android is by far the smartphone OS with the widest distribution. While it was at one time pointed more at geeks, Google has to take into account a much wider range of users including people who get stuck a phone only because the price is the same as feature phones (free on contract), especially when they're added to a family plan.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Actually one of my beefs by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.

      I'd say that's more of a user problem than an interface problem, really. If it throws up a popup in front of the user saying, "This site is attempting to steal your credit card info" and the popup is green with a giant smiley face, *that* would be an interface problem. Ignorant users is not a design problem. Making it hard for users to figure stuff out would be.

      Security is not an Easy Button, for a number of reasons. Allowing all permissions in one chunk is the equivalent of signing your soul over in every EULA you ever encounter in a product in order to use it, but there's no reason it has to be. There could at least be a settings page that lets you granularize things (as you say).

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    9. Re:Actually one of my beefs by mlts · · Score: 2

      What I'd like to see is something similar to the old LBE Privacy Guard (which doesn't have a version in English for recent Android releases.) That way, even though an app might ask for everything under the sun, one can turn on functionality that prompts if an app can do something, similar to how iOS and BlackberryOS do things.

      For non-technical users, they can leave that off and either allow/deny apps on install. For more technical users, they can turn off a permission either explicitly (with an exception or error returned), or false data (so a GPS request ends up winding up in the same place such as USENET Central Administration's address.)

      I like having functionality similar to the Cydia app, PMP (Protect My Privacy). That way, if something asks for everything under the sun and won't work without it, the app can data-mine all day... all it will get is random garbage for contacts, random meme pictures, and randomly generated death metal band names.

    10. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the facebook app? The reason I do not have it installed anymore is that it crashes without most of the permissions it wants.

    11. Re:Actually one of my beefs by JavaBear · · Score: 1

      I'd say at least have the ability to set if the requested permissions are read only, or read/write.

    12. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      Permissions are a very hard problem to solve, but I think the Android way of presenting them all up front at a high level does at least make it easy and most importantly very low time/irritation cost for the user to check them.

      Out of interest, how many times do we need some app overreaching on permissions before people will finally accept that the all-or-nothing-big-old-list-of-permissions-with-no-context is actually a really crappy way of doing things that the majority of users blindly ignore because they don't understand what it's trying to tell them?

      I'm genuinely curious.

      We must be well into double figures by now, so what is it? Triple figures before there is begrudging acceptance that there might be an issue?

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    13. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka, SOLVED!

    14. Re:Actually one of my beefs by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Oh, bullshit.

      Have all presented permissions as a selection process and have them all selected by default. In other words, make in an opt-out process. Maybe give a warning about possible malfunctions when a permission is deselected and an option for advanced users to suppress the warning.

      Users who know what they're doing and how to predict the effects of disabling certain permissions get more control over their data, everyone else will just accept the defaults as they always do anyway.

      It's not a difficult problem, somebody just doesn't want it solved. Who is that somebody? Whoever stands to gain by making permissions an all-or-nothing proposition.

    15. Re:Actually one of my beefs by c · · Score: 2

      the next step is that applications start crashing when you revoke their permissions, or the authors simply refuse to let them run.

      A good sandbox makes it hard or impossible to find the sides of the box.

      The way things are implemented by Cyanogenmod's Privacy Guard, the application gets an empty data set and has no way to know if the permissions have been revoked. In the context of text messages, it might not even be able to tell the difference between having permissions revoked, being on a tablet without SMS, and being on a phone that's never received a text.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    16. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      Facebook can't read your texts on iOS because it's not possible. My app doesn't require a permission to access network state on iOS because my app can't change it anyway.

      Why would I ever let a third party app access my text messages? The only thing that I need an app to know about my network state is if I'm connected and if I'm on cellular or wifi.

    17. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS backup apps, mightytext, keyboards that learn from your writing style

    18. Re:Actually one of my beefs by tthomas48 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because a third party text messaging app could be much better than the one built into your phone? Because a third party app could offer you mesh networking, tethering with multiple SIDs and VLAN isolation, etc.

    19. Re:Actually one of my beefs by phorm · · Score: 1

      It worked OK on my old blackberry. If it's such an issue for some users, make it an optional control.

    20. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The way things are implemented by Cyanogenmod's Privacy Guard,

      Of course, most Cyanogenmod installations currently exist on rooted phones...

    21. Re:Actually one of my beefs by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      which requires asking for permission to change the user's networks.

      If all you want to do is query network state, you only need the ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE permission. Never heard of a "change the user's networks" permission but seems like it would only work with a rooted device anyway.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    22. Re:Actually one of my beefs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Android needs to add two levels of permissions for much of this stuff. You basically have to ask for everything or nothing. I wanted to check network state in my current app, which requires asking for permission to change the user's networks. I don't want to change their networks. I just want to see if the network is up.

      But they really do need to be able to read your messages to automatically verify blah blah blah. Not sure how to get around that. In the meantime, if you miss app ops and you have a rooted phone, xposed framework will let you have app ops xposed module to get it back.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Actually one of my beefs by kwardroid · · Score: 1

      Search for LBE on xda, there is a partially/good enough translated version.

    24. Re:Actually one of my beefs by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I wrote an app that automatically reads texts aloud when you're driving. To do that, I need to access your texts.

      On iOS, this app just isn't possible.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    25. Re: Actually one of my beefs by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That would make sense except it was always that way (I had the G1) and it definitely wasn't the phone for everyone then. I do agree that many people use Android but its fans generally state that customisation and more options as the reason for wanting Android and it's open garden and in many cases that is true but annoyingly the one thing that could stop tracking is closed off from user control. I don't think that's to be more helpful to users.

    26. Re:Actually one of my beefs by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Of course you just have to trust that Apple is doing all your security properly since there's no way to validate that fact.

      It's more about making sure that security happens authoritatively at the right layer. That can means giving up some things if you don't allow security delecgation to proliferate. But relying on apple to get it right at the right layer is a lot more likely than there not being some app maker some where that goofs it, and ruins the whole thing.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    27. Re:Actually one of my beefs by c · · Score: 1

      Of course, most Cyanogenmod installations currently exist on rooted phones...

      Yes.

      It's not clear to me what your point is. Are you suggesting something about root (which I generally don't use on my devices), or about having to install CM in order to get some kind of permissions controls?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    28. Re:Actually one of my beefs by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

      I've found that most of the time the only permission I really need to deny is the ability to access the internet. Since Android has iptables that's easy, and there are front ends (I like AFWall+) if you don't want to use a shell script for it. The "Android Tuner" app can also apparently manage permissions, using the Xposed framework.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    29. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Android developer, I agree. To do anything at all, you have to ask for a lot of permissions that don't really tell the user -why- you need them. Would be nice to say something like "I need X because of Y", but then no one would trust you anyway.

    30. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On stock iOS, this app just isn't possible.

      FTFY. Ever heard of Cydia?

    31. Re:Actually one of my beefs by sjames · · Score: 1

      Even bigger problem, many app want to know when you use the phone so they can mute, pause, or duck their sound. Unfortunately, they can't get permission for that without getting permission to know all of the details of the call.

    32. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use an app that backs up my text messages to my email account. I don't see it as any more dangerous than any other email-type program.

    33. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My app doesn't require a permission to access network state on iOS because iOS has a proper reachability API

      FTFY.

    34. Re:Actually one of my beefs by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fine and dandy, but for other apps, it could make plenty of sense. They can't currently offer optional features that need extra permissions, they either get it all up front or not at all.

    35. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wrote an app that automatically reads texts aloud when you're driving. To do that, I need to access your texts.

      On iOS, this app just isn't possible.

      On iOS, that capability is built into the OS under accessibility settings, so you don't need to develop an app for it.

    36. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed: Google goes to great lengths to project an image of a company run out a garage by a couple of college pals, when in fact it's a multi-billion dollar global behemoth, run by a board of well-remunerated directors with countless computer scientists within their charge.

      As another poster commented in a recent article, many of Google's products will appear flawed and unpolished ("beta", etc) but their core business -- advertising / AdWords -- well, that runs smoothly. Coincidence?

    37. Re:Actually one of my beefs by EvilGrin5000 · · Score: 2

      You mean like XPrivacy ?

      --
      A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
    38. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a flaw in Android, it is an intentional design decision made by Google in order to accomplish THEIR goals, you are not the customer, you are the product.

      Let's clear that up a bit more. Cyanogenmod; a very slight modification of Android based entirely on free software Google could easily copy, have a feature which completely protects you from this. It provides a privacy mode in which applications can't see your private data even if they ask for those permissions. The interesting thing is that this privacy mode has a deliberately introduced security flaw which lets application writers avoid the effect if they really want to. The thing is, that this security flaw was not in the original patch which inspired the privacy mode. Cyanogenmod added the flaw since they were afraid Google might ban them from getting normal access to Android's play market place. Google stock Android really really needs to allow users to turn off privilages from applications selectively and without the application being able to tell that is in privacy mode.

      The only company clearly and visibly having a worse influence on privacy here is Microsoft which has been very agressive in cooperation with the NSA and which is currently running adverts about email privacy whilst it was the first company to hand over all their email. At least Google and even Facebook are pretty up front about using your data for advertising.

    39. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android's implementation is just as bad as everyone else's, because it falls into the dancing pigs problem.

    40. Re:Actually one of my beefs by ntropia · · Score: 1

      It is true that users don't bother much with the granularity of permissions, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't know the reason a given permission is required in the first place.
      F-Droid tries to address this, for example. For each permission, there is a short explanation that the developer (I presume) has to write on why it is required.
      Not perfect, but it's better than Google Play, in my opinion.

    41. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I ever let a third party app access my text messages? The only thing that I need an app to know about my network state is if I'm connected and if I'm on cellular or wifi.

      My thoughts exactly, and IOS lets you do this.

    42. Re:Actually one of my beefs by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      And does iOS allow you to respond without touching (or looking at) the device by voice? Because mine does. It also automatically tells when you're driving based on your speed and will turn the feature on and off. Will iOS do that? Because mine does.

      Basically, Android allows you to do whatever you want. Just don't use apps that require permissions you're not comfortable giving. For example, my app doesn't request any IO methods other than reading/sending texts. No network or filesystem access where it could copy the texts elsewhere.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    43. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but "read" and "write" are fairly coarse grained permission distinctions.

      Besides, a lot of this stuff is the same LCD crap that means printer manufacturers tell their customers their MFD printer needs "Network Administrator" permissions to operate, when all it needs is Change permissions on it's destinations folders, not even Full which is the other usual overreach. Sure, it will always work if you give it ultimate control over your entire network, but it's not something responsible people can agree to, and some of us have phones too.

      All you need is the OPTION to drill down the permission list; if you want to say yes to all at a higher level, that's your issue. If the developer is too stupid to work out what permissions they really need then they have the problem.

    44. Re: Actually one of my beefs by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      If you're referring to the Play Services (the one piece of the OS that is completely out of user control), Ars Technica talked about this recently. That was changed so that it would be more helpful to users in that Google would no longer be at the mercy of wireless carriers to upgrade certain parts of the operating system. By integrating Play Services at the core of the OS, they can theoretically upgrade almost any part they want without having to provide completely new firmware. That improves security, too, because they can install patches that the carriers would otherwise block for QA reasons.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    45. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is XPrivacy that can 'feed' fake data to the application as well as control what kind of access the application can have in the device. It does require the Xposed Framework to be installed which in turn requires the device to be 'rooted' to work properly.

    46. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also the "Read phone state and identity" when all you really want is to know that the phone is ringing so you can pause your sound!

    47. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he is talking about both: CyanogenMod has its own privacy control manager, mainly because CM has a superuser manager integrated in it (root access). It is also possible to avoid CM (if you prefer to run stock firmware or just-dont-want-CM) by installing Xprivacy and Xposed Frameworks which can limit the permissions that an application can access, however, this method also requires root access to the device,

    48. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      The problem is that such granular permissions are too complex for most users to understand. It's not such a good security model. Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.

      Permissions are a very hard problem to solve, but I think the Android way of presenting them all up front at a high level does at least make it easy and most importantly very low time/irritation cost for the user to check them. Most people seem to be cottoning on to the fact that flashlight apps don't need network or phone access. Maybe power users could have a box to tick for extended granular permissions, but of course such users can get them via an app because they already have root.

      Actually, you make a good argument in favor of Apple's "walled garden" where they do the complex assessments, and the user is presented only with something as simple as "Do you want to allow LinkedIn to access your contacts?"

    49. Re:Actually one of my beefs by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      The problem is that such granular permissions are too complex for most users to understand. It's not such a good security model. Think about how endless permission messages on Vista lead to people blindly clicking "OK" all the time. Think about how parents were quickly trained by their kids to enter their PIN every time the iPad required it to play some game.

      Granular permissions are too complex because the requests are too fucking generic, and I say this as both a user and a developer. There are ways to quickly tell the user what's going on, give a bit more information to users who actually might care, and still maintain ease of use.

      BeerFart wants to access text messages
              [OK | Don't Install]

      BeerFart wants to access your current location
              [OK | Don't Install]

      Of course anyone who wants to install BeerFart will click right through those dialogs. What about a more consumer-friendly alternative?

      BeerFart wants to access every text you send and get, even private ones!
      They may save them forever or sell them to other companies.
              [OK | Only TXTs from BeerFart | Don't Install]

      BeerFart wants to know your current location anytime your phone is on.
      They may store that forever or sell it to other companies!
              [OK | Only When Running BeerFart | Don't Install]

      Maybe folks would think twice - or at least once and a half - before allowing everything. And there should still be a way for proper apps to run even if you deny some of those permissions. The problem is that the manufacturers want carriers to sell the devices, the carriers don't want support calls, and the app stores want to take their cut on every last piece of shit that any user can be convinced to buy or use.

      Granular permissions can be done in a user-friendly manner. Unfortunately, that reduces the almighty profit.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    50. Re:Actually one of my beefs by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      ...while I agree, the next step is that applications start crashing when you revoke their permissions, or the authors simply refuse to let them run.

      Aha, but there's a trick the OS can play to avoid that: simply pretend that the permission has been granted.
      In case of text-messages, simply give the app access to an empty list of messages (keeping the real list of messages completely separated from it).

      There, problem solved.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    51. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I ever let a third party app access my text messages?

      Because you don't like the stock messaging application and want to install a 3rd party one instead?

    52. Re:Actually one of my beefs by c · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Although I'd say that offering "root access" is a tremendous understatement in the context of a complete operating system replacement.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    53. Re:Actually one of my beefs by tibman · · Score: 2

      Lol, i was thinking the same thing. Want to listen to texts and perform an action? Or just replace the whole sub-system? Simply not possible on iOS. Side-stepping an issue is not solving it.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    54. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We want 99 "free" apps.

      If you're having app problems I feel bad for you son. I have 99 problems but an app ain't one.

    55. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voice your opinion.

      Many have asked for this feature. Google keeps ignoring them.

      Not sure why.

    56. Re:Actually one of my beefs by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You left out "don't allow location access but still install the application anyway". I can and have turned on and off location access for apps on iOS after installation.

    57. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Windows Phone this is built in along with the ability to reply using voice recognition.

    58. Re:Actually one of my beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so it's not really an apples to apples comparison...

      I see what you did there...

  4. simple fix on android by tresstatus · · Score: 0

    root install xposed framework install AppOpsXposed remove permission to almost everything i checked and noted that the new permission had been added but never used.

    --
    stephen
    1. Re:simple fix on android by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      "simple". Not something my parents could do (nor would I expect them to).

    2. Re:simple fix on android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cyanogenmod has privacy guard. If I am not mistaken it just feeds apps empty data.

    3. Re:simple fix on android by TangoMargarine · · Score: 0

      Root.

      install xposed framework
      install AppOpsXposed

      Remove permission to almost everything.

      I checked mine and noted that the new permission had been added but never used.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:simple fix on android by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      And that's something most people can't do (or are even aware of), don't want to do or don't want to risk rendering the phone useless.

      I'm building a new Media Center, and will probably go with either Win7 or BeyondTV instead of Myth. Why? Because I want to watch TV, not spend my time configuring the remote, the front display, my surveillance cameras, debugging why 'x' video won't play or why I can't get the TV guide to download and so on. (and I've been using computers since 1979).

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  5. Why does Facebook read your text messages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because you let them. Duh.

  6. Social Networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ALL - and I mean ALL - of these social networking sites and apps exist for one thing and on thing only - to extract your information.

    They have the data and know that they can manipulate your buying habits. You will not agree with this. I know you wont. But you are manipulable.

    We all are.

    It's NOT 'You will eat at Joes!'

    It's more like, 'Hmmm, I want to go out and eat, How about Joes?'

    That's all it takes.

    And with Big Data, they got us.

    1. Re:Social Networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I resent the notion that product trend manipulation works on everyone. It does not, and it doesn't have to. It only has to work on enough people to make it worthwhile.

    2. Re:Social Networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I resent the notion that product trend manipulation works on everyone. It does not, and it doesn't have to. It only has to work on enough people to make it worthwhile.

      Exactly this. It's nothing more than a numbers game. The problem with playing that numbers game these days is there are a hell of a lot more "numbers" to pimp your products towards, so the arrogance of companies and how they operate today adjust to that. Eventually they get to the point where they can (and will) say to the end-user, "No, we don't give a shit what you want. Take it, or leave it."

      We still like everything for "free", including email, social media, and even internet? Then don't bitch about privacy and learn to pay the real price for being a cheap ass.

  7. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uninstalled the app, started using FB via browser. For my low intensity usage it's still perfect. Also links to click and youtube embeds work seamlessly now.
    Got no messenger installed too.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative

      As soon as I saw this I uninstalled Facebook as well. My battery life has improved a bit. Also recently uninstalled Google Talk (now called "Hangouts (Replaces Google Talk)") because it started asking for access to my text messages as well. I've noticed a lot of apps asking for increased privileges lately. I usually uninstall them if it's something I don't really need. I wonder if the developers get statistics about number of people who uninstalled the app?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hangouts is the new default messaging app, that's why it's asking for access to your text messages.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would do the same, but I really like the contact integration that the Facebook app does. Is there a different way to get it over to my phone and/or synced with Google contacts?

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hacker · · Score: 1

      If you're doing that, might I suggest just using "Tinfoil for Facebook", or use Orbot + Orweb, and browse a bit more anonymously through Tor instead.

    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by asavage · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google hangouts wants to read your text messages as it is the default text message app for kitkat.

    6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My battery life has improved a bit. Also recently uninstalled Google Talk (now called "Hangouts (Replaces Google Talk)") because it started asking for access to my text messages as well.

      That shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, since Hangouts is the app for text messaging these days. I just upgraded to a new Nexus 5, for example, and there is no separate Messaging app. Hangouts handles that function by default.

      Moving back on-topic, App Ops X is a good start, and I'm disappointed with Google for removing this function from the base system and making it increasingly difficult to install and use. Ideally I'd prefer for users to have complete control over permissions, in a way which is completely transparent to the app. The app doesn't need to know that network access is blocked; it just gets a "no signal" response, or "destination unreachable" when attempting to access particular domains. It doesn't need to know that you've restricted access to the contact list; it just gets its own, private contact list. It doesn't need to know you've restricted location access, it just sees "acquiring GPS signal...". And so on. If the app can see what you've restricted, then the app can be designed to refuse to function until you've removed the restriction, which defeats the whole point. The sandbox approach is the only reasonable way to have fine-grained permissions under the user's control.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by tobiasly · · Score: 2

      Uninstalled the app, started using FB via browser. For my low intensity usage it's still perfect. Also links to click and youtube embeds work seamlessly now.
      Got no messenger installed too.

      A thousand times this. The line for me was when my recent camera pics popped up in the app with a caption "do you want to post these to Facebook"? Uhh, fuck no Facebook and stop rifling your grubby mitts through my pics without asking me TYVM (Dropbox, Twitter, Google+ all have similar functionality but have an explicit settings for this).

      This is also a weakness in Android permissions IMO: many apps ask for USB access to store their own data but that means they can read everything under /sdcard including photos.

      Now I use the mobile site, plus Slice if needed. The only drawback is that apps which require Facebook to login now require an OAuth web dialog where I have to log in again, whereas before the Facebook app showed the confirmation with no re-auth required.

    8. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but why try to push it on people with Gingerbread? To me, it just seemed like an app asking for permissions it had no business of asking for. I haven't used talk once since I got my phone. I think next time I need a new phone, I'm going to consider not going with Android. Not sure what all else is out there for cheap phones though.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by FalleStar · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it, I just uninstalled the NFL Mobile app yesterday when I saw they added the new required permission "Your personal information: Add or modify calendar events and send email to guests without owners' knowledge, read calendar events, plus confidential information"

    10. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hodet · · Score: 1

      If they do I bet hardly anyone dumps an app. People just agree, anything to get to where they want to go.

    11. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Uninstalled the app, started using FB via browser

      Good idea. On my phone, FB running in the background was using over 15% of the battery life, according to the Android power consumption stats. I can handle CPU pigs in the foreground, but my battery doesn't last long enough as it is for important things.

      Some people rave about Tinfoil for Facebook, but I prefer using the 'Desktop' site in Browser, the few times I need to.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Nooooo, We're all way too stupid, we can't have permission control, for instance:

      Allow access to text messages [x]

      WTF does that mean? I'm a retard, I can't work it out, better not let anyone have this.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      And guess what?! Since i'm using the browser i've got back my copying-pasting powers too!

    14. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. I have NEVER trusted the inbuilt Facebook app on my Android, and I have never used it. Out it goes...

    15. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Browse Facebook through Tor? That's not how it works. Submitting personal information over a Tor connection defeats the object; Your connection is anonymous, the data is not.

      Keep your personal details away from Tor; They are actively monitoring the exits.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    16. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google hangouts wants to read your text messages as it is the default text message app for kitkat."

      Aah, i see Google slapped you so hard in the face that you're thinking backwards!
      The correct assessment is:
      "Google hangouts is made the default text message so it becomes easier for google to read your text messages.

      It's not as if they developed this by accident, you know.

    17. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hacker · · Score: 1

      No, that's precisely how it should work. If you're putting anything on Facebook that you don't want the general public to see, you're using it wrong. Facebook is already exposing your profile and data all over the place, and selling it to three-letter-agencies and private, commercial companies.

      Try doing a search on Facebook for this string: "Photos of " and see how much data it shows you from someone's profile, where going to their profile directly and clicking on "Photos", shows you nothing (for those who have locked their profile down).

      Also, your connection is most-definitely NOT anonymous using Tor.

    18. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hacker · · Score: 1

      Crap, Slashdot truncated it...

      Search for: "Photos of {someone you are not friends with}"

  8. Re:Think of the children by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    This is the dumbest line of reasoning for new corporate abuses. "Think about what those 0.1% of private citizens might do if they had similar access!"

    Rather than, "Your ours now, since you've ever used our service." I'm not entirely sure the facebook bloatware that comes on cell phones won't provide this data back for even non-users like me. You just can't prove it, since the walled-garden prevents you from installing your own security measures.

    The big corporations feel entitled to our private lives, and we can't stop them.

  9. simple fix on android by tresstatus · · Score: 2

    Root
    install xposed framework
    install AppOpsXposed
    remove permission to almost everything

    i checked mine and noted that the new permission had been added but never used

    --
    stephen
  10. Simple solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use the facebook app.

    If you have an app-capable phone, you can probably access the facebook website using your phone.

  11. The bigger issue... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    The bigger issue is that Facebook is shovelware on most providers handsets.

    I had to go get Facebook, since I live on this planet, and have friends who use it to coordinate, you know, life. ...but at least I had a choice.

    Admittedly, people do have to sign into that big F icon. It doesn't just auto-authenticate.

    1. Re:The bigger issue... by hacker · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't need to use the Facebook app on your phone, you can use the mobile version of the website, or if you're using Android (as is the case with the OP's gripe), you can use Tinfoil for Facebook.

      Remember to uninstall Facebook as an app and from ROM including the SNS service (not a typo), to completely rid your handset of that mess.

      If you don't want to do that, use Orbot and the mobile site over Tor using the Orweb Privacy Browser.

    2. Re:The bigger issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I had to go get Facebook, since I live on this planet, and have friends who use it to coordinate, you know, life. ...but at least I had a choice.

      Er, you have a rather funny way of defining choice there buddy. Good luck with the wool fitting. Remember it just needs to cover your eyes just enough so you don't have a desire to lift it.

    3. Re:The bigger issue... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves [It's not easy for the general population], they don't have most of the options you suggest.

      Their best bet is to never logon to the shovelware version (good luck, grandpa!), and download an app that they've never heard of.

      I'd never heard of Tinfoil until today, but I'll check it out -- since, as I mentioned, Facebook is a necessary evil for me. I've got it set to the minimum number of notifications allowed (my personal peeve, since I don't value my privacy over my convenience [generally]), but as long as my friends and family use it to coordinate social functions instead of voice and paper, I'm stuck with it.

    4. Re:The bigger issue... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves

      It's not just can't root. If I root, I lose access to (at least) Netflix, if not others, so there's a tradeoff.

    5. Re:The bigger issue... by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      Is that true?

      I have two rooted tablets, one running CyanogenMod and the other running KATKiss (both on 4.4/KitKat), and there are sometimes problems running Netflix, but by and large I'd say it works. The problems I've had most often were that videos would start playing, then the audio would continue but the video would freeze frame.

      I have a TV/BluRay player that does Netflix, so I don't really care. But last time I tried to watch a show on the tablet, it worked. (And I'm definitely still rooted.)

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    6. Re:The bigger issue... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Interesting, maybe the issue's been resolved (last tried it probably a year ago). Thanks!

    7. Re:The bigger issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here, multiple devices rooted and every one will still play Netflix.

    8. Re:The bigger issue... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves

      I got tired of seeing all the useless services and apps that have come on both my phone and my tablets, so I decided today I would root them both and get rid of the crap.

      I googled for the root procedure and came up with SuperOneClick. It was discussed in XDA developers so it must be ok. Looks easy, too. Almost too easy to be true.

      I tried to download it. I found a few "official" pages that claimed to have it but were populated by several of the very large green "Download Now" buttons that actually download other things. No, thanks, I don't want Zip Unzippers or whatever it is you want me to download, I came for SuperOneClick. The ShortFuse website had obvious links for versions 2.2 and the next one up, but when I clicked one of those I was told that the file had been removed. Hmmm. Can't get what I came for, but I can get lots of other things.

      I found a link on the bottom of an XDA post and downloaded v. 2.2 as a zip file. Extracted it. I actually ran it and it sat for a long time at the "starting ADB" status. And almost immediately, Symantec pops up a warning that it has found malware -- a virus it says is related to AOHell. And it's in the SuperOneClick I just downloaded.

      Yes, it isn't easy given that getting and running the software looks for all the world like you're getting pwned. Perhaps it would be easier for the general population if doing it didn't look like you were dealing with the kinds of software that you don't want them installing because it is malware. I'm NOT saying that SuperOneClick IS, but it's hard to know it isn't.

  12. lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    two factor auth doesnt require the app to read your txts

  13. SMS Integration by ottothecow · · Score: 3, Informative
    They want to be able to view your messages, so that they can do the same thing google is doing with Hangouts:

    Put both your SMS and your Instant messaging in the same app (just pushing facebook chat over hangout chat).

    --
    Bottles.
    1. Re:SMS Integration by Spoke · · Score: 1

      The last big update of Facebook Messenger for Android not long ago REMOVES the ability to send SMS messages. There is also no way to send SMS messages through the main Facebook app. Why would Facebook remove the ability to send SMS messages through their apps if their long-term goal was to be able to send SMS messages through their apps? IMO their goal is to have all messages routed through them directly instead of SMS, but they really screwed up by removing a feature that a lot of Android users used.

      Coincidentally, Google Hangouts added the ability to send SMS messages right around the same time that Facebook Messenger removed theirs.

    2. Re:SMS Integration by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      IIRC (and I may be wrong), the facebook SMS feature sent the SMS through facebook itself (i.e. using a data connection, not a carrier provided SMS). You could never send and receive your phone's own SMS messages through the facebook app.

      Hangouts doesn't send the SMS through data, but rather just becomes your phone's SMS client so that you receive SMS messages in Hangouts as well.

      My guess is facebook removed the feature since it was little used and cost money (since they had to operate as an SMS gateway) and having it go away for a while would make it so people weren't confused by the options when they decide to integrate SMS into the app. Not saying they will do this, but it was my first thought when I saw this news yesterday.

      --
      Bottles.
    3. Re:SMS Integration by Spoke · · Score: 1

      No, you could use the Facebook Messenger app as a replacement for the crappy stock Android SMS app and it would use your phone to send/receive SMS messages just like the newer Google Hangouts does.

      You could also use it to just send regular Facebook messages, just like you can use Hangouts to send messages to other Google users using a regular internet/data connection.

  14. ... and so does twitter ... by hpoul · · Score: 2

    ... and many other apps. No idea why they really need those permissions just so users don't need to copy over a verification number. This is ridiculous... i wonder if they did research what more users would accept.. having their app require the permission to read *all* SMS .. or just requiring the user to occasionally type a one time password from the SMS app into the twitter/facebook/whatever app.

    this is really something android has to solve.. something like optional permissions for the lazy users who really want to have that single features which requires all your personal data.. it's not just as a user, but it's also annoying as a developer - i could obviously also just make the user download 3 different apps for each functionality, and have fine grained permissions this way, but this can't be the best solution..

    --
    Find me at http://herbert.poul.at
  15. Do not have my permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I opt to txt someone, I expect that data is only accessible to them (and the NSA). Similarly, I object to emailing dweebs with gmail accounts.

    The content of my private communications is none of these companies business.

    1. Re:Do not have my permission by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Yahoo also reads all yahoo emails.

    2. Re:Do not have my permission by mlts · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend reading the EULA of any "free" E-mail provider. All of them reserve the right (in some wording or another) to go looking through the mailbox as they see fit to sell to advertisers.

      Want E-mail privacy? One has to do like they did before the advent of Hotmail, and either pay for a custom domain +hosting or pay for a private ISP for mail hosting. I personally use SaaSHost.net [1], but there are many others that are good.

      I prefer a provider that only does paid subscriptions, no ad revenue. That way, no matter what, you are the customer, not the product.

    3. Re:Do not have my permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Email providers keep a copy of your email and can read it whenever they want. If you are paranoid set up your own email server that is yours and yours alone. but this still does not account for unencrypted traffic. Once it leave your machine and is out in the world you have no idea who can/does access it aside from the NSA who we all know read our messages

  16. So it can authenticate by sending a text by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    What Facebook wants to do is send a text message with a special code to your phone. Letting the app read your text messages allows the app to read the code automatically so you don't have to copy and paste from the messages app.

    1. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      What Facebook wants to do is send a text message with a special code to your phone. Letting the app read your text messages allows the app to read the code automatically so you don't have to copy and paste from the messages app.

      But what else is the app reading in my text messages?

    2. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Facebook wants to do is send a text message with a special code to your phone. Letting the app read your text messages allows the app to read information that has nothing to do with the operation of the app or Facebook, but can be sold to the highest bidder.

      There. Fixed that for you.

    3. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      This is a perfect example of why is should be possible to give an app temporary permission to do something, or to selectively deny permissions. This type of authentication is something that only needs to be done once over the lifetime of the device. If I was using it, I would just copy/paste the code -- and someone who is less paranoid could allow the facebook app to read their text messages at setup time, and then deny that permission from that point on. Instead what we end up with is that after you've gone through that authentication step, Facebook will be able to read your text messages forever more.

      But I assume that most people are just going to shrug and install the app anyway. I know that way back when, facebook would bug me to give them my email password so that they could go look up all my contacts. It's hard to believe that people actually fall for crap like that -- but apparently they do.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      Reading the codes for all your other two factor authentication accounts. Like your bank account, or your brokerage account.

      There, didn't Facebook make life easy?

      SMS to your phone isn't such a secure channel for two factor authentication if every other app has access to it.

    5. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I know that way back when, facebook would bug me to give them my email password so that they could go look up all my contacts. It's hard to believe that people actually fall for crap like that -- but apparently they do.

      They must, LinkedIn still does this.

    6. Re:So it can authenticate by sending a text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS is not secure over the air and over the network anyway. So it makes no difference.

  17. Well there you go by Java+Pimp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Facebook says it is only so it can facilitate two-factor authentication

    No need to question it further. A completely benign reason with no ulterior motive. Just allow it and be happy. Facebook wouldn't do anything against your wishes...

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
    1. Re:Well there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook says it is only so it can facilitate two-factor authentication

      No need to question it further. A completely benign reason with no ulterior motive. Just allow it and be happy. Facebook wouldn't do anything against your wishes...

      Doesn't automating-away the process of two-factor authentication, sorta kinda defeat the whole purpose of two-factor authentication?

  18. facebook wants to know more about you.... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That is why facebook does anything it does, it wants to know all about you, your friends and relatives.

    .
    facebook even collects the posts you start typing but decide not to send.

  19. Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I couldn't be happier now that I've completely purged Facebook and its hidden (SNS, not a typo) services from my ROM and phone, and frozen/deleted all of the other assets in other apps that try to "phone home" to Facebook. Side benefit is that after removing Facebook from my phone, I gained seven solid HOURS of battery life back. I didn't realize how often the SNS service and Facebook itself were sending and receiving data, phoning home, etc.

    The combination of Android Permission Manager, DroidWall and LBE Security Master have made things much easier to block, delete, drop packets, deny and forbid services from trying to use unnecessary permissions.

    I guarantee that no app is doing what it shouldn't, and those that should have permissions (Camera => Take Photos Permission) are prompted every time they attempt to do so, never allowed by default. If I'm not using the Camera for example, and I get a popup that it tried to take a photo, I permanently deny it and remove/uninstall the app. I don't tolerate any of that out-of-band behavior on my phone.

    You should investigate the same. Yes, we all know about the L4 kernel, but this at least will help remove the abuse from the application level.

    1. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I feel so strange about your suggestion to download a Chinese "security" application?

    2. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity. Have you actually gotten a popup about an app trying to use the camera like that or was it a "for instance"? If so, what was it? This is a serious question. I'm working on a project looking at rogue behavior like that.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    3. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The combination of Android Permission Manager, DroidWall and LBE Security Master have made things much easier to block, delete, drop packets, deny and forbid services from trying to use unnecessary permissions.

      Dear members, please remember that installing closed source software as root will automatically voids your paranoid member card.

      Permission Manager and LBE Security Master are both closed source, and need root to run. Not acceptable.
      Bonus points, LBE's home page is in chinese, no offense intended, just paranoid.

      On the other hand, Xprivacy does the same job and is GPL'd.
      By the way, Droidwall is severely outdated, you might consider trying its (open source) successor / fork, AFWall +

      Being paranoid is a full time job !

    4. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I guarantee that no app is doing what it shouldn't, and those that should have permissions (Camera => Take Photos Permission) are prompted every time they attempt to do so, never allowed by default. If I'm not using the Camera for example, and I get a popup that it tried to take a photo, I permanently deny it and remove/uninstall the app. I don't tolerate any of that out-of-band behavior on my phone.

      You guarantee it, eh? I wasn't aware you worked for the NSA. Welcome.

    5. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My phone is rooted and running a customized OS. The OS I installed (SynergyROM for a Samsung Galaxy S3) uses pdroid manager which a user can use to selectively block certain permissions which apps may want. It is open source, if memory serves. Posting anon since I modded earlier.

    6. Re:Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ago by hacker · · Score: 2

      Yes, there are quite a few apps that ask for access/permission to things they clearly should not have permissions for. I've taken quite a few screenshots of the abuse, posted on my Twitpic feed. Look closely at the dates some of these were posted:

      http://twitpic.com/dfg0wn

      http://twitpic.com/d7sepd

      http://twitpic.com/ckgra5

      http://twitpic.com/ckgr11

      I found the issue with Brightest Flashlight almost a full year ago, now it's just recently hit the news. Sigh.
      http://twitpic.com/cjlfvr

      http://twitpic.com/cjl3r1

      http://twitpic.com/cjg0q3

  20. Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why do people put up with this kind of shit and keep buying iphone & android?

    People ask why I still carry a blackberry instead of iphone or android. This is one of the many reasons. Unfortunately it seems that only a dozen people think like me.

    Both iphone and android are insecure platforms designed to give OTHER PEOPLE full access to your data while limiting YOUR access to YOUR data.

    Many, many years ago, smart people at Research in Motion designed the blackberry and allowed the owner of the device to set individual, granular permissions as to what an app can access.

  21. Another simple solution by stevegee58 · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Go to "Account Settings"
    2) Press "Deactivate you account"
    3) Get an effin' life.

    1. Re:Another simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get an effin' life.

      Like trolling Slashdot. Much more productive apparently.

    2. Re:Another simple solution by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      1) Go to "Account Settings"
      2) Press "Deactivate you account"
      3) Get an effin' life.
      4) ???
      5) Profit!

      FTFY. You must be new here ;-)

    3. Re:Another simple solution by antdude · · Score: 1

      Facebook still has your data though!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  22. Re:Think of the children by mandark1967 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's the sound goatse makes when he farts

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  23. Re:Think of the children by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    We can't?

    Facebook didn't get any kind of information from me. Take a wild guess how I accomplished this feat.

    Hint: They can't exist without us. We can exist just fine without them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. pebkac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't install apps that require permissions you don't want to give.

  25. im sure the dialog is scripted. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    user: Facebook, why do you want to read my text messages?
    Facebook:Fuck you, thats why.
    user: okay.jpg.


    All joking aside though, seriously, stop using facebook. You're the product, not the consumer, so none of your opinions or concerns sincerely matter.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:im sure the dialog is scripted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the product, not the consumer, so none of your opinions or concerns sincerely matter.

      This isn't really fair. Doesn't facebook have an interest in curating a good product? How can they do that if your opinions don't matter? In fact, this very logic is why I joined facebook in the first place, because it seemed like they understood that. I haven't seen that they don't still get it; Android permissions are hardly a smoking gun along the lines of "OMG facebook is spying on you!?!"

    2. Re:im sure the dialog is scripted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the product, not the consumer, so none of your opinions or concerns sincerely matter.
       
      Ironic to see this out of someone posting on Slashdot in 2014.

    3. Re:im sure the dialog is scripted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though everybody already knew that fb spies on users in every way imaginable and that no smoking gun is needed. Europeans that under more sane legislation were able to request fb to hand over all the data collected about them and were stunned when just browsing habits data rarely fit on one CD, as you should recall....

    4. Re:im sure the dialog is scripted. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It's called a feedback page. No need to spy for the info.

    5. Re:im sure the dialog is scripted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also as InQtel is one of the initial funders I think ppl would not be so eager to use it
      if they knew that InQtel is the CIA.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

      http://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/

  26. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by Njovich · · Score: 2

    The real security for blackberry apps is in that they made it such a PITA to develop for Blackberry that nobody bothers.

  27. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, iPhone does the same thing, jagoff.

  28. Google Voice by SlashDPC · · Score: 0

    I use Google Voice exclusively for SMS. My 'Messages' app is almost always empty, so it can read(spy on) my txt messages all it wants.

  29. Re:Think of the children by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    What is this "Walled Garden" on Android of which you speak?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  30. Wish there were a Cyanogenmod for my phone by barlevg · · Score: 2

    I recently installed Cyanogenmod on my old phone (HTC G2/Desire) so my wife, who's taken possession of it, could use some 4.x-only apps. I couldn't believe how beautifully it runs on a three-year-old phone (I mean, it's SLOW, but everything WORKS), and the lack of bloatware and pre-installed apps (read: Facebook) makes me super jealous. I'd put Cyanogenmod on my current phone (Samsung Galaxy Relay), but last I checked, there weren't any stable builds for it with an Android version greater than what I've got now (4.1).

    1. Re:Wish there were a Cyanogenmod for my phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://download.cyanogenmod.org/?device=apexqtmo shows cm10.2 (Android 4.3, based on http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-10-2-0-release) available, is you're Relay really on 4.4 ?

    2. Re:Wish there were a Cyanogenmod for my phone by barlevg · · Score: 1

      No, that's new! I actually just found that for myself, about 5 mins after posting this comment, and now I'm super excited. Anyone know by any chance whether there are issues putting Cyanogenmod on a locked phone? I found this stackexchange issue, but I feel like if it were actually a thing, it would be more commonly documented.

    3. Re:Wish there were a Cyanogenmod for my phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be careful. I bricked my Desire with a previous release.

    4. Re:Wish there were a Cyanogenmod for my phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like it could be carrier/sim locked, you can take a look at this thread it looks promising

  31. Re:Think of the children by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And if bloatware on your phone is eating your private messages and sending them off to a company you never signed up for an account with, would you know?

  32. I installed alien sheild goodness. by emil · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:I installed alien sheild goodness. by tbuddy · · Score: 2

      That's great for the 10 million of the 900+ million Android devices out there. I'm going to wager that many of the Cyanogenmod users aren't the Facebook type anyway. It's also only for Cyanogenmod 10.2, which is just recently considered stable and not supported on a great many devices.

    2. Re:I installed alien sheild goodness. by enoz · · Score: 1

      With the Privacy Guard settings per app you can block failbook from reading and/or sending SMS, among other options.

  33. Blackberry by QBasicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blackberry actually had this right. Apps requested permission when you installed them, you could either allow, deny, or ask it to prompt you first. It would be really awesome if Android had that feature too.

    --
    x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    1. Re:Blackberry by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      isn't that what Android already does?
      At least what my S3 does is at install time it gives you a screen telling you exactly which permissions the app needs while you can choose not to install it.

    2. Re:Blackberry by vux984 · · Score: 1

      isn't that what Android already does?

      No.

      At least what my S3 does is at install time it gives you a screen telling you exactly which permissions the app needs while you can choose not to install it.

      So if there is anything you are unsure of, or don't want to give the app, then no app for you.

      His suggestion is that you can install the app, allow permission X, Y, Z but not A,B,C and have it prompt you when/if it tries to Q and R.

      Most apps are pretty benign, and ask for permissions to do things they really do need to do, but unfortunately the permission lets them do much much more.

      Say you download a simple texting app, with the feature to let you take a picture of your face for your profile right in the app. Now the app needs permission to access your camera.

      I'd want to set that permission to prompt. The feature doesn't bother me at all, and is perfectly legitimate. But if its malware, maybe it just turns the camera on at random and takes pictures... I have no way to know.

      The only choice I have on my S3 is to see the permission request, and not install the app because it might do that, but probably doesn't.

      Ideally I should be able to instal the app, but not give it camera access -- so I don't have to trust it. I can't use the camera feature now, but so what, I don't want to set my picture that way anyway.

      Or better still I can set it to prompt for camera access. Then I don't have to worry about it taking pictures, I can still use the picture feature if I want to, and if it ever prompts for camera access and I didn't -JUST- tell it to take a picture of me for my profile THEN I toss the app.

      But no on android its eitehr... "here app -- I trust you with my camera" or "nope... no app for me".

    3. Re:Blackberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it (as I am an Android and Linux person) but apple has it right. You can allow or block permissions at any point in time at or after install, and it can be done per permission required.

  34. When Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...built the same on OS level into KitKat, no-one seemed to care, so why should Fuckbook not at least try to do the same...?

  35. Re:Think of the children by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    We can't?

    Facebook didn't get any kind of information from me. Take a wild guess how I accomplished this feat.

    Hint: They can't exist without us. We can exist just fine without them.

    You disable all sorts of stuff and you also don't install their app?

    I've only installed 2 apps since I purchased my Samsung Galaxy S4, 8 months ago. I disable all manner of things, and as if that's not mean enough by me, I turn the power off for extended periods of time to save my battery (which admittedly is a very good battery, but I don't feel like charging it all the time when I'm not using it.) So I'm pretty useless to anyone trying to spy on me. (Not that spying on me is going to tell anyone much "he spends an awful lot of time walking around in little circles, what could be the reason?" hint: may involve tupperware and million dollar satellites.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  36. Re: Think of the children by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    You can if you support a smartphone OS that does not casually give all your information to every app that requests it

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  37. Android going the wrong way about permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now, when I download/update an app it tells me it needs a number of permissions, I can either accept or not use the app at all. Instead, I should be able to tell Android what each app can access, just like the NoScript plugin for Firefox.

    1. Re:Android going the wrong way about permissions by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Something like that would be the right way to go...

  38. Even if you don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My carrier seems to think I need to use Facebook so much that it won't allow me to remove the app from my phone. So, now I'm left with the option of upgrading (and therefore giving FB access to my messages), or not upgrading and tolerating any potential security/privacy risks in the earliest version.

  39. Re:android is so broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop installing fleshlight apps that want all and sundry for permissions.

  40. Facebook gets *some* info from me... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    But it's limited, because I uninstalled their app from my phone the moment they wanted a list of the running apps on my device. I still interact with FB, but using a separate browser app that only talks to FB. With location turned off.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Facebook gets *some* info from me... by rp · · Score: 1

      But it's limited, because I uninstalled their app from my phone the moment they wanted a list of the running apps on my device. I still interact with FB, but using a separate browser app that only talks to FB. With location turned off.

      I tried to to that, but the smartphone says the Facebook app is a standard app and cannot be uninstalled.

  41. Simple: Android permissions are not fine enough by krelvin · · Score: 2

    Simple. They want to be able to get a status from SMS text and the only way to get that is to get permission to the SMS Messages. There is no finer permission level in Android to just give them what they need without access to the rest.

    I just block that access since I don't want to use their messaging anyway. Blocked with Root, Xposed Framework, XPrivacy to control which permissions I want to allow them to have.

    1. Re:Simple: Android permissions are not fine enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try AppOpsXposed instead of Xprivacy. I think you'll like it.

  42. Im not updating by el+momia · · Score: 2

    I saw that odd permission request today, fuck me if I ever update this crapware again

  43. Simple solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) dont use it, or
    2) use an older version with less permissions, or
    3) use a third party app for FB, or
    4) write your own app.

    FB app is a APK which is a ZIP file, you can resource the java intermediate code to generated Java and see what it REALLY does.

    I have done this myself out of curiosity, and after that, I no longer use FB apps and ANY app that OVERREACHES permissions beyond reasonable, I also upload REVIEWS on app store sites such as Amazon with the information and negative stars.

  44. Stuff like this... by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    ...is why I have never installed the app in the first place. Using the browser works perfectly fine, and doesn't let Fuckerberg mine my phone.

    1. Re:Stuff like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read HTML5 API's, you can now access LOCAL SENSORS on a mobile device via JavaScript (EcmaScript) embedded in HTML 5 web pages.

      Sensors include, geo-location, battery state, and more. These mobility APIs for HTML 5 will also increase. So no evading them :) You need a script blocker thats not domain specific rather Function specific. Which dont exist (to the general public) unless you go and write one.

  45. Re:Think of the children by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Are you fucking serious? So give up your privacy, and let corporations monitor your actions because it will make pedophiles think twice before molesting your kids?!

    Just what kind of fucked up life do you have?!

  46. Because fuck you by FuzzNugget · · Score: 0

    That's why

  47. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by mlts · · Score: 1

    You can make Android pretty decent by starting off with a device with an unlockable bootloader and using CM or another decent ROM. I've always added a firewall (root needed) so if an app doesn't need to communicate out, it won't get out, no matter if it has that permission or not.

  48. Yes they do by jtara · · Score: 1

    Duh, wait for it, wait for it... ... you were going to say "I'm not on Facebook".

    But what you really mean is, you don't have a Facebook account.

    But you ARE on Facebook!

  49. Re:Think of the children by jigawatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can't?

    Facebook didn't get any kind of information from me. Take a wild guess how I accomplished this feat.

    Hint: They can't exist without us. We can exist just fine without them.

    So you've never texted anybody who uses facebook?

    You can close your mouth now.

  50. ITS MADE OF PEOPLE! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    SoylentBook apparently...

    That's why my chosen mode of communication is Morse code using one time pads only. It works perfectly should I ever find someone else willing to communicate that way.

  51. They target ads via datamining by Theovon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Facebook’s primary source of revenue is ads. Just like Google. They increases the probability that you’ll click on one by examining every last bit of your data that goes through their system. That’s the whole thing in a nutshell.

    It amazes me that people are surprised by this.

    Don’t put anything on the internet that you don’t want Facebook, Google, the NSA, and every one else looking at. If you store something encrypted on the internet, there’s a chance someone will hack it and get your data anyway. NOTHING IS PRIVATE ON THE INTERNET. Yes, I have a Facebook account, which I use rarely to connect with friends and family. I don’t talk about anything sensitive, and I don’t publish any information that isn’t the sort of thing I would be embarrassed to appear on my LinkedIn profile, which is something I WANT people to see.

    The key here isn’t to to complain about Facebook’s policies. That isn’t going to change because 99% of people just accept them anyway. The key is to avoid those services if you object to them. There are many other things in life that make you become publically visible, not limited by any means fo Facebook. Perhaps you want to avoid those too. Good. If ultimately the majority of people decide they don’t like being probed like this, perhaps Facebook will chance. But probably not because they’ll still have a billion users.

    Some really stupid picture of you getting drunk from 5 years ago is still on the Internet somewhere, and employers WILL find it. I think this is awesome. In this economic environment, I’m very glad to have more ways that people remove themselves from competition with me when I’m looking for a job. Some people just don’t do really stupid things, while others are forward-looking enough to keep them from getting published. Either way, those are the sorts of people I want to hire in preference to jackasses who think it’s funny to show everyone how stupid they are.

    1. Re:They target ads via datamining by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      You understand that this very rant is a good excuse for someone to not hire you, right? It isn't just drunk pictures, it's opinionated text that's a danger as well. Opinionated as in, not the same opinion as theirs.

    2. Re:They target ads via datamining by sinij · · Score: 3, Funny

      >>>Don't put anything on the internet that you don't want Facebook, Google, the NSA, and every one else looking at.
       
        This is a very good advice that I followed to the letter when I killed my sister and buried her body in my backyard so I could collect insurance money.
       
        -Bill from KY, Carlisle County

  52. Re: Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because you drank the "land of the free, home of the brave, Wikileaks endangered lives, Assange raped women, Snowden is a traitor" kool-aid and asked for more?

  53. They don't need to read them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....they want to read them.

    This should come as no shock considering their history of incrementally becoming more invasive in their data collection methods. If you use facebook, you should expect to be facebook's bitch.

  54. Re:android is so broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you and your overpriced hunk of shit are very happy together.

  55. Why does Facebook need to do anything? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Is Facebook still a thing? After all we've seen, is it a legitimate product, or just an ad machine operating on top of an information gathering tool?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  56. Not just facebook by phorm · · Score: 1

    EA is a pretty huge culprit for this too.
    Why does it need internet and access to my contacts
    "Oh, that's um... to enable social game functionality"

    In reality, internet access="needs-to-be-online DRM", and who knows what they're doing with your contacts

  57. They are innocent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear! They've been forced by the NSA!

    Just ask cold fjord! he knows!

  58. I need a PS4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *nm*

  59. this is what broke my camels back by onepoint · · Score: 2

    I did not really think to much about privacy until this update.
    Now I am slowly deleting and detoxing from facebook
    while I did not give a hoot before, now I can only wonder why I did not do this sooner.

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
  60. Re:Think of the children by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    It's the sound Zuckerberg's products make as they cancel their accounts.

  61. Re:Think of the children by g0bshiTe · · Score: 0

    Hush, how else will the NSA fatten their database?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  62. Re:Think of the children by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Using the terms tupperware and million dollar satellites you just put yourself and now me on at least 9 terrorist watch lists.

    Thanks.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  63. Re:Think of the children by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    One in which this is apparently ok with them obviously.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  64. Re:Think of the children by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    The same kind of person that seriously thought the opt out in a spam email that was unsolicited actually allowed them to opt out.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  65. Product Enhancement for Facebook's customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simply business. Facebook has to make a profit and they are making a more diverse product for their customers.

  66. Re:Think of the children by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

    Are YOU fucking stupid? Or is your sarcasm detector just frozen today?

  67. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it doesn't. When iOS gets ATO on DoD networks or when NATO personnel are allowed to use it, then you guys can compare yourselves to BlackBerry from a security/privacy perspective. Until then, you just sound like an ignoramus for even trying.

    Nobody has ever jailbroken or rooted a BlackBerry, and BB10 is about five years ahead of iOS and Android that this point. You guys know what a RTOS is? Yeah, BB10 runs on one. It makes a big difference.

    BlackBerry has been attacked because its entire business model revolves around protecting your privacy.

  68. Re:Think of the children by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    Why do you have that kind of phone instead of a simple phonic device? Yes, they exist, i have one.

  69. Worse than that... by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

    I removed Facebook from my Android device when I discovered it wanted permission to take photos without even notifying me :O

    --
    I am not a number - I am a free man!
  70. Re:Think of the children by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    "The big corporations feel entitled to our private lives, and we can't stop them."

    Well, you can start by NOT installing the Facebook app and not using Facebook. Sure, they can get info from other sources, but they could always do that.
    Get used to it. In the name of "National Security" on the government end and services you can use for free on the corporate end, your info is not and never will be truly private, probably ever again baring some sort of major upheaval in society.

  71. Re:Think of the children by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot, 50/50 of either

  72. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    That's too clunky. If I'm paying for a phone, I need it to fulfill my requirements (including security and privacy ones) from the get-go without manual tinkering. I have more interesting things to do.

  73. Re:Think of the children by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Have you looked at the thermometer?

    http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazo...

  74. Re:Think of the children by unrtst · · Score: 2

    What is this "Walled Garden" on Android of which you speak?

    The one that won't let you uninstall any app that was shipped with the phone.

    Yes, you can install other apps and sideload apps (in most cases at least). "Walled Garden" generally refers to the being restricted to one app store, but I'd agree that it loosely applies here as well.

    You may be able to root the device and/or install cyanogen or some other OS. In most cases, that does not override the fact that there is a walled garden... it just means the walls are not perfect.

    For an example, how do you remove "Story Album" from a Samsung Galaxy S4 without rooting the device?
    If some app is already installed, and you can't remove it, you have no way to control what it has access to without more drastic steps (rooting). This is the intent of the distributor.

  75. Re:Think of the children by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Because they're useful tools of modern society, you damn luddite.

  76. Re: Think of the children by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    So, PalmOS? (Not WebOS)

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  77. Re:Think of the children by mlk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because I don't want a phone. I want a PDA.

    I also want to phone people every once in a blue moon and have always-on access to various IM clients. I don't want to carry two devices.

    Now you don't want this and it is great that you can get a device that meets your needs. I can get a device that meets my needs but alas now they all come with shit installed.

    --
    Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  78. Simple way to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start sending text messages for an obscure subject you have no interest in, and see if the Facebook ads suddenly change to be applicable. For example, send messages about midget clothing if you are normal sized.

  79. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long were you holding that one in? ;)

  80. Bad answer, this is a security issue by mysidia · · Score: 1

    it is only so it can facilitate two-factor authentication...apparently."

    In other words.... if my bank sends me a SMS message with a code in order to login, Facebook can now swipe my second factor verification number up to their server, and the fellow who compromised Facebook's servers who also somehow guessed my bank password, can now complete the 2 factor auth to my bank just fine.

    1. Re:Bad answer, this is a security issue by cpghost · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to use a different phone for 2-factor authentication. If you lump all into one, what's the whole point?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Bad answer, this is a security issue by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to use a different phone for 2-factor authentication. If you lump all into one, what's the whole point?

      I'm not going to buy a separate phone to use as authenticator, for each 2factor website I need to browse to on my PC.

  81. One reason why I'm giving up on Android by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    When I was deciding on a tablet, I was waffling on what to get but the issue of privacy ended up being the thing that decided me.

    With Android, you have no choice but to accept the permissions that an app insists on. Either that, or don't use the app. Combine that with Google stating outright that they plan on *reducing* privacy protections, I wasn't happy.

    Then I researched the privacy protections in iOS. You have the ability to selectively deny or allow what an application is allowed to see, and can change your choice later on if you change your mind. Say what you will about Apple, but at least they're making a decent effort in this regard.

    1. Re:One reason why I'm giving up on Android by n3tkUt · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand this line of reasoning. What's the alternative? An iPhone?

      If privacy is your concern, you certainly aren't better off with an iPhone. Instead of writing out my own list, I'll just copy from the Free Software Foundation website:

      • These devices completely block free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's devices.
      • Apple endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.
      • iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.
      • iTunes won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora on these devices.
      • iPhone is not the only option for smartphones. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software.

      ...

      Here's more from FSF: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-... You can find similar info from a million other sources if you don't like that one.

      At least with Android you have a choice in who makes the phone, and one can simply root an Android to be done with the bullshit. Not happy after rooting? Run something like Ubuntu. You have to essentially break an iPhone to get admin access, then what? It's still the same shitty phone, forever.

      I'm no fan of either (or Windows), and really hope to one day see an affordable (FOSS) alternative, but saying this is why I am giving up on Android and then going over to a proprietary device like iPhone, or even Windows (haha who am I kidding?) is just bonkers.

    2. Re:One reason why I'm giving up on Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should have googled "xprivacy android". iOS does have the better default these days, but without jail breaking they are far from best

    3. Re:One reason why I'm giving up on Android by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      That's just it... There IS NO alternative. It's Android, iOS, with WinPhone bringing up the rear.

      FirefoxOS and UbuntuPhone still amount to little more than a curiosity for developers. Until a mature, FOSS platform becomes available, all you can do is make the best out of a bad situation.

      I used to believe the same thing as you. When I had an iPhone, I was chomping at the bit because of my lack of control. But then I got a Samsung Galaxy S3. You know what my priority is now? Something that *works*. I'm still incredulous that the flagship phone from a major company can be such a steaming pile of crap. I had to root my phone just to remove the crapware Samsung put on. It's one thing to root and hack up a device because you want more control. It's another thing entirely when you HAVE to root and hack up a device, because out of the box the thing isn't even fit for purpose.

      Google is doing everything they can to make it abundantly clear that they are giving you cheap devices solely so that they can mine the crap out of you. Microsoft's history of viciously destructive behaviour makes me write them off without even evaluating their device. Apple are a bunch of control freaks, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Especially when you consider the fact that you can't trust all programmers out there to write apps that behave properly.

      The fact is, a phone isn't a random gadget that one plays around with. It's a lifeline to the world, especially for many who give up their land lines. If there's one personal device one can own that HAS to work, it's your phone. Period. (Well, I suppose someone with a CPAP machine would argue differently...) But you get my point.

      I will be delighted in giving UbuntuPhone or FirefoxOS (or Meego, or whatever) a try once they've proven themselves to be functional and reliable. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with iOS.

    4. Re:One reason why I'm giving up on Android by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      So... what you're saying is that I have to root my device and install a third party tool in order to get something I expect to have gotten out of the box.

      Thank you for pointing this out as an option, but it doesn't change the core issue. Especially for people who are unable or unwilling to root their devices.

  82. Re:Think of the children by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Well Said!!

  83. We produce this solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At work we have an SDK, appdominal, that lets you do this. It's a legit reason to get access to the SMS inbox, but it does mean they can read every message you get

  84. Re:Think of the children by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

    Why do you have a computer when a calculator can do the same job of adding numbers? Better yet, why not use an Abacus? Whats that you say... a computer can do more than simply add numbers? Similarly, a smartphone can do more than make and recieve phone calls.

  85. Re:Think of the children by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    That's nothing! If you use the words yack, rubber hose, lube and Deborah Fienstein in a sentence the NSA's LOVEINT department starts tracking you.

    Whoops.....

  86. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real security for blackberry apps is in that they made it such a PITA to develop for Blackberry that nobody bothers.

    Well, up to OS version 7, blackberry runs java, which is pretty much the same as android dalvik.

    The new blackberry 10 is different, but repackaging an android app to run on blackberry 10 is very easy.

  87. Re:Think of the children by briancox2 · · Score: 2

    PacMan ROMS have Privacy Guard that allows you to disable those "permissions" you give for apps upon install. The app will think it's doing what it wants. But you're in control.

    Rooting and flashing a new ROM is the best thing you can do for your privacy.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  88. Re:Sigh. Blackberry fixed this more than a decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, iPhone does the same thing, jagoff.

    Wrong: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/google-and-mobile-apps-take-data-books-without-permission/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    "lawmakers sent the company a letter asking how approved apps were allowed to take address book data without users’ permission. Apple’s published rules on apps expressly prohibit that practice."

    Apple ios does NOT block an app from accessing the contacts, or require the user to be prompted. (this may have changed in a later version of ios).

  89. Re:Think of the children by jakimfett · · Score: 1

    I've been quite pleased with the performance increases and security enhancements provided by Cyanogenmod. But then...I'm also willing to break my phone a couple of times if necessary while trimming away unnecessary permissions from apps.

    --
    Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  90. Another obvious answer to why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the founder of Facebook is a net sociopath!

    Facebook: just press N!

  91. Re:Think of the children by hodet · · Score: 1

    Exactly, this is a non issue. We all know what FB is and what their business model is. Either you accept the terms of the agreement or move on in life without it. Tired of these stupid "why does facebook need to do this?" questions. Because they are in the business of making money off their product (you!). For many people the price they pay (information) is worth it for what they get back. For others the price is too high. Decide where you stand and act accordingly.

  92. Re:Think of the children by mlk · · Score: 1

    The move to Cyanogenmod (or a like) is tempting, but to uninstall none-system apps I should not need to.

    Plus as I'm using a Note I'd be worried that I'd the features that I do want (S-Note for example) will either not work or would require magic. And I'm lazy. :)

    --
    Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  93. Worse... by Nexzus · · Score: 1

    ...is Facebook blocking the app if it's too old.

    --
    Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
  94. Re:android is so broken... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 2

    Not sure iOS is any less broken - they don't ask you about some things, they just share them anyway. As soon as I got an iPhone and installed the LinkedIn app, linked in started asking me if I wanted to connect to people/organizations that I haven't had anything to do with in years - but they happened to be in my contact list on the phone. Hmmmm.....

  95. Re:Think of the children by jakimfett · · Score: 1

    Depending on your android version, you can disable specific apps. But I think you have to have a 4.x build of android.

    --
    Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  96. what is this facebook you speak about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???

  97. Because ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... you were gullible enough to use Facebook in the first place.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  98. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    judging by history so far each major upheaval resulted in increased security measures short term at least, especially if it was successful in changing the clowns at power.

  99. Re:Think of the children by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    NOT installing the Facebook app

    You think that's a choice?

  100. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hint: They can't exist without us. We can exist just fine without them.

    So you've never texted anybody who uses facebook?

    I have never texted anyone. Period. See? It's really not that hard.

    You can close your mouth now.

    Thanks, but I will open and close my mouth whenever and however I want. And I won't need you or FB to tell me when to jump and how high, thank you very much. Pardon me, but I think Zuckerberg is asking you to bend over again.

  101. ever tried to prove that you are not a camel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If one cannot remove a silly true photo of oneself from the tubes, then the same is true for the fakes. How many employers ever tried to verify the photos, they have seen on the tubes? The point is - somebody may have posted a photo with you having fun with a camel, a photo which was a fake. Your prospective employers may not even bother to verify. The fun part is - they may not even bother to tell you whether they rejected you because they got excited out of this photo , because they did not or just because they did not like the camel's smile. The memory of the tubes is another subject than the ones discussed on this thread and one that that you failed to analyse properly. But hey that is ok - now you can go and have fun with the camel anyway - this does not make any difference anymore...

  102. Re:Think of the children by agm · · Score: 1

    I do. My children don't have a cell phone and don't need one. They have iPod touches, but they aren't allowed in their rooms with them and most definitely cannot sleep with them (this is more about my paranoia of wifi signals than of privacy). All digital devices get put in a common area in the evening.

  103. Re:Think of the children by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Yes, I have never texted anyone who uses facebook. I can say that with some sort of credibility due to never texting. I'm one of those odd people who prefer to, ya know, make PHONE calls with a PHONE.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  104. This was the last drop. by cuby · · Score: 2

    My nexus S was getting slow and I needed another phone. For some time I was seeing google changing open applications for closed ones. I already knew that the permissions on android were broken. I never installed LinkedIn because of the calendar permission... No reason for that! And then I see this Facebook update and an older one asking to authorize the keyboard to access the internet... Why?? I talked with some Friends with iPhones and I got convinced that iOS protects me better. I bought a second hand iPhone 5.

    --
    Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
    1. Re:This was the last drop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying an iDevice for privacy/security reasons is like buying a Nerf gun to defend your home from burglars. Consider the fact that an iPhone 5s can be 100% owned remotely with no user interaction, as has been proven by Pwn2Own on every new iDevice that comes out.

      At least you have to install a third party app to have your Android owned.

    2. Re:This was the last drop. by cuby · · Score: 1

      Any system can be hacked if you have physical access to it. My reasoning was other. You can limit permissions, app by app. Don't want to give location to facebook? you don't have to.

      --
      Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
  105. Re:Think of the children by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    Stock Android Nexus 5 direct from Google. Half the price, great phone, no crapware (OK you can argue some of stock Google is crapware. But its not the *crappy* crapware Samsung and the carriers install).

  106. Re:Think of the children by postbigbang · · Score: 2

    There is snoopwall and others that stanch the flow of bad stuff. But honestly, Facebook ought to heavily fined for their boorish invasion of privacy. The data hogs need to be taught a lesson of the value of ecosystems, which is that if your customers revolt, your business model is dead.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  107. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Firewall logs don't lie. Set it to WiFi only (disable mobile) and observe for a while.

  108. m.facebook.com by popdookey · · Score: 2

    With Firefox. Using Ghostery. It's about the safest way I can find to use and be used by Facebook on my Android-based Nexus 4.

    --
    Success without humility is an indulgence in arrogance
  109. Re:Think of the children by jigawatt · · Score: 1

    Yes, I have never texted anyone who uses facebook. I can say that with some sort of credibility due to never texting. I'm one of those odd people who prefer to, ya know, make PHONE calls with a PHONE.

    Way to go. I take it back.

  110. Re: Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bomb teh white house!

  111. Re:android is so broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps needs permission to access the contacts on iOS.

  112. Why do you care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You use Facebook. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

  113. Re:android is so broken... by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 1

    They didn't used to

  114. Re: Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my Nexus 5, it is certainly an option.

  115. This is an Android flaw by Askmum · · Score: 2

    These kind of "strange" permissions are quite common. Lately, my online banking Android app asked permission to access the camera. Now why would a banking app require access to the camera? Apparently because they have added the possibility to scan checks.
    Ok, all very nice. But now you have access to the camera. How can I see that you are not using it all the time? Just ask for access when you are going to use it, not when you install an app that may want to use it.
    IMHO this is a flaw in Android app permissions.

  116. Re:Think of the children by horza · · Score: 1

    I have a Note 2 and depends on the ROM you install. Some support all the features, some not. Eg Paranoid Android won't, but Jedi X will. There is also a Note3 ROM for the Note. Flashing a new ROM takes about 10 mins to root and reinstall. Very easy indeed. I highly recommend trying some of the ROMs, they blow away stock in terms of security and features. You should root the device anyway so you can run Adblock Plus.

    Phillip.

  117. THE REASON WHY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When facebook sends you a text message code to verify a change or update, it AUTOMATICLY pulls it from your phone after sending it too you. That's pretty much the only reason. No reason to get paranoid.

    1. Re:THE REASON WHY! by Askmum · · Score: 1

      And in the mean time they have the ability to pull EVERY message from your phone. That is the reason to be concerned.

  118. The LOGICAL answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever updated or change anything on your facebook account using the app? Doesn't send your phone a sms code to verify yourself? If you were paying attention you'd noticed that you never had to enter that code into face book, that in fact the app check your sms messages grab the verification code and plugged it in itself. OH NO! The world didnt end.

  119. Re: Removed app + hidden services from ROM long ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bernays was the one that made them realize they needed to rebrand the war machine
    from Dept of War to Dept of Defense.

    When Bernays wrote his book propaganda he kinda let the cat out of the bag on
    what is really going on.

    "“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”[6]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29

  120. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Deborah Dianne's sister or something?

  121. Solution by SinisterEVIL · · Score: 1

    Root your phone. Install an app that does per app permissions like LBE security. The facebook app also checks your GPS every single time you open the app. I think everyone would be surprised how many apps do what once they do per app permisions. SoundHound checks gps almost every sing hour. It's insane.

  122. They don't already? by Modern+Primate · · Score: 1

    A year or so ago a friend of mine sent me a text that said "Have you ever considered becoming an actuary?" The following day I had ads for an actuarial school in my newsfeed. Are they saying that was a coincidence?

  123. NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one so far is saying that maybe some secret organization of the U.S. government required Facebook to do more monitoring.