Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Could Be Eavesdropping On Your Phone Calls (news10.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook is not just looking at user's personal information, interests, and online habits but also to your private conversations, revealed a new report. According to NBC report, this may be the case as Kelli Burns, a professor at University of South Florida states, "I don't think that people realize how much Facebook is tracking every move we're making online. Anything that you're doing on your phone, Facebook is watching." the professor said. Now how do you prove that? Professor Kelli tested out her theory by enabling the microphone feature, and talked about her desire to go on a safari, informing about the mode of transport she would take. "I'm really interested in going on an African safari. I think it'd be wonderful to ride in one of those jeeps," she said aloud, phone in hand. The results were shocking, as less than 60 seconds later, the first post on her Facebook feed was about a safari story out of nowhere, which was then revealed that the story had been posted three hours earlier. And, after mentioning a jeep, a car ad also appeared on her page. On a support page, Facebook explains how this feature works: "No, we don't record your conversations. If you choose to turn on this feature, we'll only use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to or watching based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify. If this feature is turned on, it's only active when you're writing a status update." I wonder how many people are actually aware of this.

167 comments

  1. off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how to turn this off????

    1. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop using the Facebook app!

    2. Re: off! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I've had a similar experience with Google. Having a conversation and then start typing a search based on that conversation in Google and with just a few letters typed, one of the suggestions is 100% on topic for the conversation I was having. This is typically on my desktop and I'm not running any Google offline apps (just hitting web pages).

    3. Re: off! by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      Stop using Facebook!

      FTFY

    4. Re: off! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Stop using the Internet!

      FTFY

    5. Re:off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how to turn this off????

      It's in the Facebook App settings on your iPhone. (https://www.facebook.com/help/iphone-app/1499418503612943)
      You can also shut off its permissions to access your microphone.

    6. Re:off! by rainmouse · · Score: 1
      Facebook describes this very 'feature' right here.

      https://www.facebook.com/help/...

    7. Re: off! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      This.

      Closed my account almost a year ago and it was the greatest thing I have done in a LONG time.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    8. Re: off! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      So... confirmation bias, then.

    9. Re: off! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've had a similar experience with Google. Having a conversation and then start typing a search based on that conversation in Google and with just a few letters typed, one of the suggestions is 100% on topic for the conversation I was having. This is typically on my desktop and I'm not running any Google offline apps (just hitting web pages).

      Google is even worse... they do mind reading. Often when I am only thinking of something and start typing it, autocomplete shows the exact thing I was thinking about! Get out of my head, Google! I can't even find a setting in Android to turn this mind reading feature off.

    10. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They still collect all the gossip about you and associate it with a shadow account made for you.

    11. Re: off! by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      I swear I was just thinking the same thing, VILE GOOGLE BOT!!

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    12. Re:off! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      well - yes - I too was shocked to learn this today. But apparently I already figured it out because the Microphone & Camera are disabled in the Settings.

      The online description makes it sound like the iPhone Siri "Hey Siri - what music is playing now?" feature. Not really listening, rather identifying key words ( Shazam feature?!).

      However, I have this (misplaced?) assumed privacy that Google and Apple only begin listening when I say "Okay Google" / "Hey Siri" and that all processing power is spent Only on detecting those trigger words. Facebook doesn't have this "Hey FB" trigger so I would have assumed that nothing was going on.

      I probably looked at the settings one day and wondered "why would FB need the microphone??!... hell no."

    13. Re:off! by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Facebook describes this very 'feature' right here.

      https://www.facebook.com/help/...

      Well, kind of, but it seems misleading:

      No, we don't record your conversations. If you choose to turn on this feature, we'll only use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to or watching based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify. If this feature is turned on, it's only active when you're writing a status update.

      They say that it's only things you're listening to or watching, but how can they tell the difference between a private conversation between my wife and I, and what I'm watching on TV?

    14. Re:off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about android users, you insensitive clod!

    15. Re: off! by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I've noticed the same. I'm pretty sure it's not mind reading, though.

      I do think the prediction system of Chrome takes into account what is topical. The scary part in those instances is probably more how unoriginal and how topically driven your thoughts are than that an algorithm is able to 'predict' them.

    16. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a similar experience with Google. Having a conversation and then start typing a search based on that conversation in Google and with just a few letters typed, one of the suggestions is 100% on topic for the conversation I was having. This is typically on my desktop and I'm not running any Google offline apps (just hitting web pages).

      Amazon's Alexa does the same thing.
      The day after having a drunken phone call with an ex, a 55-gallon drum of hydrocloric acid showed up at my door, with two DJI Phantom 4 drones, a 12-piece silverware set, and 144 pairs of socks.

    17. Re:off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      private conversation between my wife and I, and what I'm watching on TV?

      private conversation between my wife and me, and what I'm watching on TV?

      FTFY

    18. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never used it, but recently it has started kicking off the play store when I click my messages in my phone browser. Last night it wouldn't even load through in the browser after I closed the play store.

    19. Re: off! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Stop using the Facebook app!

      Move out of the USA. It's only enabled for United States users :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    20. Re:off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes android users are insensitive clods, what was your point?

    21. Re:off! by fisted · · Score: 1

      Thanks for repeating what is already in TFS. No, you don't get an easy +5 Informative for this. No, hijacking the thread to appear more close to the top won't help it.

    22. Re:off! by manwargi · · Score: 1

      If you must use FB use the Tinfoil for Facebook app or access the site through your browser.

    23. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a. Jenny and me/I (?) joined the chess club.
      b. Jill took Justin and me/I (?) to the shop.
      In sentence a), Jenny and me/I are the subjects of the verb joined. Therefore, the subject pronoun, I, is considered correct. You will certainly hear native speakers say, âoeJenny and me,â and it may be acceptable in spoken English, but most traditional grammarians and English teachers will disapprove. Donâ(TM)t use it in writing.

    24. Re:off! by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Well, kind of, but it seems misleading:

      They say that it's only things you're listening to or watching, but how can they tell the difference between a private conversation between my wife and I, and what I'm watching on TV?

      Yup.. I just linked to what they had to say about it. I in no way endorse this horrific practice which will no doubt see people who play team based online shooters or table-top Pen and Paper RPG games added almost immediately to Government lists.

    25. Re: off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg hilarious!!!

  2. Still useless for advertising by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

    Displaying an ad based on a word I say is the biggest waste of advertising money I can think of.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:Still useless for advertising by FreonTrip · · Score: 4, Funny

      "God, I just don't understand how he can be such a dick. Anyway, I've gotta go, time to put my cake in the oven." Two minutes, an idle Facebook moment, and an ad for erotic cakes later...

    2. Re:Still useless for advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and an ad for erotic cakes later...

      Or an ad for books and movies on the holocaust...

    3. Re:Still useless for advertising by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "Oh, and honey, don't forget the condoms. Nooooo, you're not getting any! What? No, not you, sweety, I'm talking to Max, he's begging for doggy treats."

      2 minutes later...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Still useless for advertising by mccrew · · Score: 1

      Displaying an ad based on a word I say is the biggest waste of advertising money I can think of.

      Actually, displaying an ad based on a word you say is the holy grail for advertisers.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    5. Re:Still useless for advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse is when FB showed me vehicle advertisements when I talked about the truck I'd just bought. Umm, too late, guys! I remember searching for trucks beforehand on FB, too, and it didn't help with my purchase. Advertising is such a shot in the dark, I'm surprised how much money is spent on it. Been FB-free for over 2 years now.

    6. Re: Still useless for advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ad for dog condoms?

    7. Re:Still useless for advertising by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Erotic Cakes is an awesome CD though.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    8. Re:Still useless for advertising by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Displaying an ad based on a word I say is the biggest waste of advertising money I can think of.

      Actually, displaying an ad based on a word you say is the holy grail for advertisers.

      Turn the feature on while watching Deadpool. Not sure what ads you'll get but messing with their metrics sounds like fun.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. You think it's just facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube polls your microphone with its HTML5 player.

    1. Re:You think it's just facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof?

    2. Re:You think it's just facebook? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, now it gets interesting, if there's as much as an indication that this could maybe, possibly have anything to do with what could commonly be called with some veracity "the truth", I'd like to see it!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:You think it's just facebook? by allo · · Score: 1

      It would have to ask for permission. Did you get such an popup? I did never.

    4. Re:You think it's just facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highly unlikely but if you could prove it was true you could take Google (excuse me, fanbois, Alphabet) to task over wiretapping laws.

  4. Nothing short of Disturbing by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

    The pendulum has swung far enough, we need take back our right to privacy. Make it the default setting and not the other way around.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you give your privacy away, just so you can post status updates about your life, you're not really concerned about privacy, are you?

      In other words, most people could not care any less about "privacy" since they are practically posting their daily lives on facebook. The problem is, those people are dragging the rest of us down along side them.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Depends, do you live in Canada? If so, then you're protected under different privacy laws. This is likely illegal here if they're using it here.

      On the other hand, dealing with the whole range of idiots out there from anti-privacy advocates to pro-authoritarian and anti-speech nuts seems to be a growing problem these days.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, this sort of thing has become the norm. A while ago, I stumbled on a feature in the Google Maps app on my Android phone, whereby it had a record/track-log of everywhere I've been.

      My first thought was "hmm..that's interesting", rather than "err..that's creepy" - like I'm almost expecting apps to be snaffling my data

    4. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Make it the default setting and not the other way around.

      I think there should be a physical switch to microphone and camera attachments on all products which carry them as integrated features, as a matter of law.

    5. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pendulum has swung far enough, we need take back our right to privacy. Make it the default setting and not the other way around.

      In order to ENABLE this feature you must:
      1. Install the Facebook App on your iPhone.
      2. Allow the App access to your microphone.
      3. Be in the USA.
      4. Go into the App and turn it on.

      So I'm not sure what you're bitching about.

    6. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Friend, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but here's the difficulty level of accomplishing that, society-wide: The current generation of young adults have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that 'sharing' is the norm, and 'privacy' is something for people who have things to hide, that if you try to explain to them what they're 'giving up', at best you'll get a funny look; more typically you'll get mocked for being 'old' and 'not understanding technology'; at worst, you'll be accused of any number of hideous things, all the way up to being a pedophile, and other horrible criminal accusations. There is some hope however, more people seem to be starting to notice that so-called 'social media' isn't really 'bringing people together', it's just giving them an excuse to not be actually social (as in, 'in person', or at least 'live on the phone'), and that all their 'friends' (with a small 'f') aren't real, and that maybe their real Friends (note the uppercase 'F') are actually few and far between (which is the way it's always been). Still, it'll be an uphill battle, with how thoroughly 'social media' has infiltrated society in general, and with the fact that it actually has some valid uses out in the world, giving some people in less fortunate countries a voice, whereas their own governments would otherwise deny them that. Keep fighting the good fight though, it's worthwhile.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You have stated the obvious, now what?

      "Why, there oughtta be a law!"

      "Someone do something!"

      Did you have a next step in mind, like figuring out who cares and whether they can be mobilized? Because this is opt in, as in use Facebook or don't.

      I miss a lot of stuff, because people don't talk about most Facebook stuff, because everyone else read the post. It's worth missing out to me, but not most people. Their argument is that this thing, which is necessary, shouldn't do certain things, as if using Facebook is a natural right.

      So now what, captain obvious?

    8. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by mark-t · · Score: 1

      ....a physical switch to microphone...

      Considering a mic is needed for phone calls, I'm not sure how practical that would be

    9. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by mccrew · · Score: 4, Insightful
      +1 Victim Blaming

      There are reasonable expectations and there are unreasonable expectations. Users may be guilty of being naive and giving an inch, but Facebook has taken that inch and run 10 miles down Big Brother Blvd. all the way out to Creepytown. So yes, users have some role, but it's no more than 10%, and a whole lot less in my opinion.

      I suspect that in your haste you forgot to mention that you have deleted your Facebook account, and furthermore don't even own a TV. :^)

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    10. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      If I choose to post about my life that's one thing. That doesn't mean I want FB to eavesdrop in my living room. Disclaimer: I do very little posting on FB, just because most of the crap I'd be willing to share would bore anyone else to sleep.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What is reasonable expectation? When people assume something, they are to blame for their assumptions, and nobody else. It is victim blaming, because instead of taking an active role in deciding how to live their lives, they have chosen to go the Zombie route and not think at all, because that is much too hard. Why blame Facebook for doing what Facebook wants to do, to provide a better experience to their customers (Advertisers)?

      When you are the product, you have no rights. After all, you have a choice of being a product, or not. Don't blame Facebook when you sell yourself off for convenience.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      You switch the mic on when you want to make a call, which is rare because everybody texts.

      Please read your comments before you post them.

    13. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      When you post about your life, to Facebook, and Facebook wants to eavesdrop on your living-room, you have the choice, to not post anything. That is the choice. Stop pretending that someone is holding a gun to your head, making you post on Facebook.

      My suggestion is, don't post to Facebook. Don't post online at all.

      As an aside, you should watch the TV Show "Person of Interest" (syndication/netflix, last season on air), as it really exposes how things really are. Yes, it is a tad Sci-Fi, but the concepts are already in place.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You switch the mic on when you want to make a call

      Considering that making or receiving calls if what a phone is, you know, actually *FOR*... again, I'm not sure that it is terribly practical. Sure, if all you use your phone for is texting then it probably would be fine for that use-case, but if you have any amount of voice calls to manage, all it does is create an extra step that would be seen as nothing more than making a mute setting the default, and the switch would just get left on.

    15. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to happen, the internet and the act of communication takes it away. Does anyone really believe they are anonymous on the internet?

    16. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by mccrew · · Score: 1

      What is reasonable expectation?

      That's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I don't think that people are stupid or uncaring just because they want to enjoy, or are seduced by, the benefits of Facebook's front door, and don't fully appreciate what they are giving up on the back door. This is a "feature" that no doubt was snuck in and pushed out via automatic update without user any the wiser, and the documentation is online but not in a place where a casual user would find it.

      Jaded veterans like you and me are not surprised by this - Facebook has a long track record of playing fast and loose with what most people consider private data (Remember when they started posting Visa purchases on Friend's News Feed? "Archangel Michael just bought tickets to Star Wars movie.")

      In the end, laziness and short-term memory will prevail, and Facebook will succeed in boiling live frogs.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    17. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying that we can victim blame 10% of the time then?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    18. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by mccrew · · Score: 1

      No, dear reader, I'm saying that the user knows and accepts that he's giving up some deliberately obfuscated amount of personal information, so she is not free of all blame. I'm just saying that a "feature" so intrusive - your device listening to your private conversations in your private residence, with no technical reason why it can't be 24x7 - is 10X more on Facebook, and trying to dismiss it as "user getting what she deserves" is unfair, and victim blaming. Which I will stand by.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    19. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is "the rest of us"?

      Do you have their stupid app installed on your phone or not?

    20. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Setting up a new ISP, router, and using IPv6 for the first time, pasted in one IPv6 number hoping it was the router address, it was my IP address - Google picked it up and showed all of my /. post as the only hit.

      It was disturbing in a way, but did show how good search engines have gotten.

    21. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I post lots of things on FB. Now none of it is factual. Disinformation is your friend.

    22. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the point that the masses could care less about the privacy aspect and as a result the rest o us suffer. With that being said you are making an active decision posting something, FB listening in and filtering ads and posts based on what it hears is different. I wonder if the microphone feature is available on an iPad. If so how would the program differentiate between TV/music and a person talking?

    23. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Reasonable expectation" is not the same thing as "naive assumption." And naive assumption is exactly what the majority of Facebook users have made.

      They have their own damn stupidity to blame. You can't hand your assets over to a largely-unregulated private business and cry foul when said business uses those assets to their own profit.

      Incidentally, I am not the OP, but I never had a Facebook account, and I don't own a TV. My phone is a dumbphone that holds a single charge for a full week and cost less than a fancy dinner. My methods of managing my privacy on my PC are.....complex (but I know who has my info and how they use it, which is more than most people can say).

    24. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      There are reasonable expectations and there are unreasonable expectations. Users may be guilty of being naive and giving an inch, but Facebook has taken that inch and run 10 miles down Big Brother Blvd.

      Facebook has been openly running full tilt down Big Brother Blvd. from day 1. It's the people who think that Facebook doesn't actively fight against your privacy who have the unreasonable expectations.

    25. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That's the good part about making it a switch: people who often use their phones as actual phones can just leave it on. But a substantial portion of the population (especially the younger set) almost never make voice phone calls. It's so rare, that when they get a voice call, they automatically assume that there's an emergency.

    26. Re:Nothing short of Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.... I think you still fail top see the difference. Seriously, why should you voluntarily posting stuff to Facebook equate to consent to having conversations eavesdropped upon? I feel like you might be missing the big difference on this one.

  5. How much does the NSA pay by monkeyFuzz · · Score: 1

    for a feed of this stuff? It's a wet dream for those folks.

    1. Re:How much does the NSA pay by Trachman · · Score: 0

      That is not how it works.

      NSA does not pay, per se. NSA reimburses Facebook for labor and expenses incurred to ensure data flow.

  6. Made the right choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am constantly more and more happy with my decision to tell this company to eff off and refuse to use their products at any level.

    1. Re:Made the right choice by ausekilis · · Score: 2

      I am constantly more and more happy with my decision to tell this company to eff off and refuse to use their products at any level.

      Except you probably still do. There have been numerous reports of any page with a like button creating an 'anonymous' user hash for the sole purpose of tracking people that are not signed in to facebook (or don't have the login cookie). Once you create an account or sign in, that user hash is then associated with your account.

      Basically, Facebook knows a lot about you even without your expressed consent by signing in.

    2. Re:Made the right choice by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      facebook.com in all its incarnations in the hosts file, a "like button" blocker plugin in the browser...

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

      Except you probably still do. There have been numerous reports of any page with a like button creating an 'anonymous' user hash for the sole purpose of tracking people that are not signed in to facebook (or don't have the login cookie). Once you create an account or sign in, that user hash is then associated with your account.

      I couldn't get to facebook on this network even if I wanted to. The same goes for numerous facebook related domains and hundreds of domains related to cross site tracking.

      $ ping www.facebook.com
      ping: unknown host www.facebook.com

      Basically, Facebook knows a lot about you even without your expressed consent by signing in.

      People who are doing this need to go directly to jail.

    4. Re:Made the right choice by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      There have been numerous reports of any page with a like button creating an 'anonymous' user hash for the sole purpose of tracking people that are not signed in to facebook (or don't have the login cookie).

      Yep, which is why I block all access to Facebook servers, and block all javascript by default.

  7. Seriously? by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you choose to turn on this feature, we'll only use your microphone to identify the things you're listening to or watching based on the music and TV matches we're able to identify. If this feature is turned on, it's only active when you're writing a status update

    Did the person who wrote this actually read what they wrote? If they're identifying what users are listening to and matching them to something else, then that's still a record, even if it's not an audio recording.

    I gave up the Facebook app years ago. m.facebook.com gives all the functionality I need; I don't even miss it...and it takes far less data than the app.

    1. Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. If I use it at all, it's with the mobile browser (Firefox with ad blocking).

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and it takes far less data than the app.

      Still, native apps are generally faster.

  8. What did you say? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    The site, itself, admits in an online statement, “We use your microphone to identify the things you’re listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we’re able to identify.” But, experts contend that the site is going a step further. In what some users are calling an alarming trend, described as “Big Brother,”

    Do we need anymore proof?
    This is unconscionable.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:What did you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site, itself, admits in an online statement, “We use your microphone to identify the things you’re listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we’re able to identify.” But, experts contend that the site is going a step further. In what some users are calling an alarming trend, described as “Big Brother,”

      Do we need anymore proof?
      This is unconscionable.

      Uh, what?
      You have to go out and install the iPhone facebook app.
      Then manually turn the feature on.
      And grant access to your microphone.
      It doesn't get much more "opt-in" than that.

      Oh, and it's only in the US right now, so all you people bitching about your Extraterritorial Privacy laws can piss off.

  9. Could be? Or is? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Facebook Could Be Eavesdropping On Your Phone Calls

    Facebook is not just looking at [...] your private conversations

    Dodgy grammar aside, they either could be or they are. Which is it? If you sure enough to state it as fact in the summary, why not do so in the headline?

    revealed a new report.

    Reveals. It's news, not olds!

    According to NBC report, this maybe

    May. Be. Two words.

    the case as Kelli Burns a professor at University of South Florida states

    Take a breath!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Could be? Or is? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      "Reveals. It's news, not olds!"

      Wrong. News is what happened, or is happening. I don't care what your community college degree says, that's not how people communicate.

    2. Re: Could be? Or is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet Facebook knows about your desire to eat a dick.

  10. It causes other issues too - by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I got my wife one of those $50 Amazon tablets recently. Removing the Facebook app increased her battery life by close to 60%. A significant part of the reason I paid the money for the Sunshine crack to own my Android phone was to get the Facebook app off my phone all together. The storage space it doesn't deserve, the battery life and bandwidth it hogs, not to mention the spying is way more trouble than Facebook is worth.

    Sure, now I still have to deal with the Google and Amazon spying, but one bridge at a time.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:It causes other issues too - by GNious · · Score: 2

      I bought a Jolla phone - no native Google or Facebook app, no eavesdropping :)

    2. Re:It causes other issues too - by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I got my wife one of those $50 Amazon tablets recently. Removing the Facebook app increased her battery life by close to 60%.

      Along those same lines - I quit Facebook a couple years ago and found my available free time increased by close to 60%!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:It causes other issues too - by Johann+Public · · Score: 1

      Have you gotten a physical QWERTY Keyboard Second Half for it? Jolla needs to include that as a default addon.

      PS MOD PARENT UP! Supporting projects like Neo900 & Jolla is the only way to defeat The Enemy as they try to dominate our lives & domesticate us further & further until our essential humanity & liberty (especially Cognitive Liberty) is obliterated.

    4. Re:It causes other issues too - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those asshats can die in a fire until they ship their tablet backers the tablets they owe them.

    5. Re:It causes other issues too - by GNious · · Score: 1

      If I could afford one, I'd have ordered it - would definitely have been awesome to have a keyboard option, but stores positively hate them due to higher return-rates and lower profit.

    6. Re:It causes other issues too - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jolla defrauded their tablet user base to build their OS. They are the enemy now.

    7. Re:It causes other issues too - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you had problems to begin with. Don't blame Facebook for being a fool.

  11. It's only metadata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No we're not "permanently" recording your full conversations, we're only temporarily transmitting a copy to our servers where robots listen and take detailed notes and then we use those notes about what you talked about for commercial purposes. I mean, what's wrong with that? What could possibly go wrong with a huge commercial database of notes on every conversation you've ever had in private?

    It's INSANE that these stories don't get more serious coverage and genuine outrage.

    Oh but you agreed to it in writing, it's all legal, it's a 21st century clip joint, you don't like it well tough beans.

    1. Re:It's only metadata by quonsar · · Score: 1

      No we're not "permanently" recording your full conversations, we're only temporarily transmitting a copy to our servers where robots listen and take detailed notes and then we use those notes about what you talked about for commercial purposes

      Well, in that case they are soon going to have a lot of notes about the weeping, pustulent sores on Zuckerburg's cock. Monetize that, you fucks.

  12. Missing details by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Is this with just phone in range of voice, on a regular network voice call or on a Facebook voice call. Either way all that shit needs turned off. Not really for them listening for key words to display ads that will be ignored anyway, but for the extra power this will be using. Every milliamp is at a premium these days.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Missing details by HiThere · · Score: 1

      "Needs to be turned off"? How can you be sure it's turned off? Facebook has been known to flip settings from private to public without either asking permission or notifying you.

      The only way to be secure from it is to avoid it. Even then you aren't secure against indirect links via third parties.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. ditto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had this happen before on a subject that had just come up and I hadn't googled / FB posted about yet. I've also seen other stories like this floating around the net like "my dad and I were discussing XYZ (a specific vacation, illness, etc) then got a FB ad for it soon after".

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

      Of course you focus on your side of the conversation possibly neglecting what your dad searched afterwards. The meta data of who you talked to and what they searched for could be combined to get similar information but with a higher level of error in accuracy.

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

      Yea because a son and his father use the same Facebook account or even the same computer. Makes sense.

    3. Re: ditto by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Duh. Father and son are facebook friends and known as father and son. They went on fishing weekends and either talked about it (in fb IM!) or were geolocated at the lake in the same 20 hours or took a few pictures or..., maybe all of that.

    4. Re: ditto by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Yea because a son and his father use the same Facebook account or even the same computer. Makes sense.

      No but Facebook would be aware of what you searched on facebook and what your friends search on, liked or shared. I had a lot of ads for wedding stuff long before I proposed and changed my status from single to engaged because friends and friends of friends were either getting married or engaged. The ads you see are not just based on your activity but also the activity of your "social network".

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  14. tl;dr If you turn on a feature, it works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Privacy is intruded upon when you're minding your own business and someone else takes information about you. The Facebook app is something you install and set up to give information about you to Facebook, which is as much of an intrusion as a guy walking into an open store to buy something and being overheard by the sales clerk.

    1. Re:tl;dr If you turn on a feature, it works. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      , which is as much of an intrusion as a guy walking into an open store to buy something and being overheard by the sales clerk.

      Yup, because when I walk into the grocery store, talking about video cards, and the clerk overhears me he quickly jots down my name, and what i was talking about and then support staff scurry about the store erecting signs for video cards next to the peaches, bread, and frozen yogurt aisles.

      Wait... no... that never happens. So maybe some random clerk overhearing me at the store; where 99% of the time it goes in one ear and out the next and the company as a whole never acts on it at all is actually ENTIRELY different from a system that automatically and systematically notes what is said and advertises to you based on what you said as part of its corporate strategy.

    2. Re:tl;dr If you turn on a feature, it works. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      which is as much of an intrusion as a guy walking into an open store to buy something and being overheard by the sales clerk.

      No. It's a much greater intrusion than that. When someone overhears what you say in public, they aren't writing it down, noting various mathematical characteristics of it, and storing everything in the database of a multinational corporation.

      Or not usually. We have a word for the people who actually do this: spies.

  15. Hear about that new Facebook keyword features? by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the bomb.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Hear about that new Facebook keyword features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare you to turn this feature on and mention b*mb, airpl*ne, etc etc and see how long it take for the FBI to show up at your door. Would be interesting to see how far our rights have eroded in the name of national security. We've always been at war with Eastas^H^H^H^H Terrorism.

    2. Re:Hear about that new Facebook keyword features? by hey! · · Score: 1

      How about "pressure cooker".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Isn't this obvious? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Why would this be a surprise to people? I thought it was well established that these companies glean information from you to make money and that they felt completely justified in doing so because they don't charge you for anything. Imagine how much confidential information they gather... I know for a fact people at my place of business use these services for work conference calls. I consider it totally irresponsible to subject a friend to it unknowingly, never mind using the services for work purposes.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Isn't this obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon does the same thing as my PAID ISP, so I get spammed based on my web activity even though I opted out of that "service". I understand advertising and spam comes free with a "free" email account but I pay for this service. If it is unprofitable to Verizon, they should say so and give me the option to pay more.

      Instead, I view them as the cowardly, underhanded slimeballs they apparently are. I loathe web 2.0 even though I use it.

  17. Re:Seriously? Metadata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the person who wrote this actually read what they wrote? If they're identifying what users are listening to and matching them to something else, then that's still a record, even if it's not an audio recording.

    No, they only captured metadata.

  18. Translation by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Facebook Could Be Eavesdropping On Your Phone Calls"

    Translation:

    "Facebook Is Eavesdropping On Your Phone Calls"

    After all of the egregious privacy abuses by Facebook that have already been uncovered, why this would surprise anyone is beyond me. OF COURSE they're eavesdropping on your conversations, you idiots. You should have assumed this a long time ago.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  19. Bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest everyone turn this on and just say to themselves things such as wanting to assassinate prominent political figures, join ISIS, scream anti-Western slogans, praise Kim Jung Un, etc. Make the application useless. This is a similar idea to the "bait signatures" that people used to have for the NSA.

    1. Re:Bait by PPH · · Score: 1

      "So, Bob, you have that federal warrant for wiretapping ready to serve? Will we have support from the US marshals on this raid? How about the Menlo Park police department? It sure would be fun if Zuckerberg was in the office and we could grab him today."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Only if you let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let them.

  21. What do you mean 'could be'? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Don't be stupid, of course they are!

    If you are using Facebook at all, then 100% of everything you do, everything you post, every mouse click, every sound you make, is being surveilled, stored, processed, evaluated, monetized, sent or sold off to 'partner' companies, and likely being sent wholesale to one or more government agencies. If you believe otherwise then you are tragically naive.

    WHY ARE YOU STILL USING FACEBOOK???

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Kamineko · · Score: 2

      What's the alternative?

      Let's take three people, Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Brown. They want to share pictures of cakes, share lighthearted gossip about Mrs. X's wedding, see pictures of other peoples cakes. Then you come in and make a reasoned case against Facebook, it doesn't matter what that case is: let's assume that you convinced all three, at once, to never touch Facebook again save to inform their contacts that they're leaving. They delete whatever accounts they can, and trust FB (wisely or not) to deactivate the rest and dispose of it however.

      Now, Smith, Jones and Brown all turn to you and say 'Alright, no Facebook, no FB app, it's all gone. Where do I go to do all the stuff that I would have done on Facebook? Real time chat, picture hosting, messaging, silly stuff, groups. It's not the 90s so we're not using "Yahoo!" but what do we do now?'

      What do you suggest to them?

    2. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Email still works just fine. And if you pay a dollar a month or so, it isn't data-mined!

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      How old are you? Not bullying or mocking you. We did just fine before so-called 'social media'; why do we need it now, when it's misbehaving the way it is, treating us the way it does?

      Your theoretical kaffeeklatsch can use email, like everyone used to, and have a greater degree of privacy than Failbook (although not perfect).

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email. IRC. Fuck, newsgroups when it comes right down to it. There are options for people that want to use them...FB and similar garbage don't bring anything new to the table other than convenience. If you're willing to give up your rights for a little convenience, there's no hope for you.

    5. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They want to gossip and copypasta all day
      Hmm. You raise an important point.

      Is snooping really the bigger problem society is facing?

    6. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      You want them to email large images to each other?

      That's a lot of bandwidth and storage, and you're not getting facilities like auto-resizing for smaller devices.

      And how is that going to scale when you've got groups of people in the three digits?

    7. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      I'm posting this as another message, as it's a more constructive idea even though I think it's a bit silly:

      You've hit upon something. Let's say e-mail is the solution. But folks won't like the lack of the features they've become used to on Facebook: the timeline constructed from other folks status updates, the picture gallery cascade, videos, links, discovering new groups, the real time chat, simple urls.

      Then... is the solution to write a wrapper over e-mail that presents a Facebook-like interface?

      Folks don't honestly give a shit about how Facebook works. They care about what it looks like and what it does. To them, Facebook is its interface. So if e-mail is better: is there a way to make e-mail more Facebook-like for them? This is just me thinking aloud.

    8. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Convenience goes a long way. Hell, convenience is the entire way.

      Social media services don't do anything by themselves except make things more convenient. (Be they posting pictures of birthday cakes or shooting yourself in the foot.)

    9. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My wife belongs to a group that set up a phpbb board to keep track of each other. It's not hard. None of them are particularly tech savvy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Do they maintain it themselves, applying patches and whatnot?

      Is there enough storage, bandwidth and processor time for them all?

      And they're willing to pay for the hosting?

      If so, bravo.

    11. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's like $5 a month for hosting.. between the group it's not a problem. When they post pictures they usually have a web space through their provider so they just use that and link to it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Now, Smith, Jones and Brown all turn to you and say 'Alright, no Facebook, no FB app, it's all gone. Where do I go to do all the stuff that I would have done on Facebook? Real time chat, picture hosting, messaging, silly stuff, groups. It's not the 90s so we're not using "Yahoo!" but what do we do now?'

      What do you suggest to them?

      Forums. Email. Texts. iMessage.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    13. Re: What do you mean 'could be'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this new feature in email that lets you send to more than one person, it's called a mailing list.

    14. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's take three people, Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Brown.

      Whatever happened to the good old Alice, Bob and Charlie?

    15. Re:What do you mean 'could be'? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      There are tons of alternative to Facebook for doing this. Email would work fine (that's what most of the people in my family do), but so would setting up one of the cheap and easy websites such as Wordpress.

  22. Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the many reasons I stopped using social media sites such as Facebook. If people knew the security holes on Facebook that allow others to easily see information despite their privacy settings they would lose their shit.

    1. Re:Social Media by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No.

      People know, and are concerned, but they use social media anyway.

      We all get inundated with articles like this at least once a week.

      We know.

      It just doesn't matter enough.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Social Media by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      What the fuck do you mean you don't use social media.

      What the fuck do you think slashdot is?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Social Media by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Anti-social media?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re: Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A forum.

    5. Re:Social Media by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot counts as "social media", then the term has pretty much lost all useful meaning.

    6. Re:Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. -PCP

    7. Re:Social Media by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And yet ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  23. That explains the strange ads... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    A friend complained about his new coat having all sorts of shit dangling from it and I suggested he should use a wire cutter to cut all those dangling bits.

    You do NOT want to know what kind of shit I had to see not a minute later!!!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Hakuna matata by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    So what? It only uses the voice data to show specific advertisements. This does not differ from the way that Facebook has used text data since the beginning.

    I know that this is kind of politically incorrect to say in Slashdot (and that's what makes saying it fun), but I claim that the benefits of Facebook still outweigh its drawbacks. My life is too short to ponder about some datamining. My data goes only through the advertisement engine and is not read by humans.

    The real danger is that if NSA has a hotline to the data. That is nothing specific to Facebook, though.

  25. Not just Facebook by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Android Marshmallow gives you the option to deny specific permissions an app asks for. I was kinda surprised at how many wanted access to the microphone and camera (that weren't sound or camera apps). It's getting to the point where I'm starting to think a mute button (physically disconnects the wires to your mic) and a physical cover to slide over any camera lenses are becoming a necessity.

    1. Re:Not just Facebook by ledow · · Score: 1

      A piece of plastic doesn't stop them listening to your calls if you've given permission. Still everything you NEED to say and have your phone hear (i.e. the content of every conversation) will be accessible to apps with those permissions.

      The trick is: Don't use those apps that have those permissions. Why does Facebook EVER need your mic? And why is Facebook running except for when you're in the Facebook app itself? Don't allocate those permissions (we really need a third option "Allow, Deny, Emulate" so the app even THINKS it has the mic access but just gets silence sent to it) and it's never a problem.

      And it's not at all difficult for manufacturers or even Google to put in a widget on the lock screen that shows WHAT features are being used by what apps. Facebook - little mic symbol, little camera symbol, for instance. And then you KNOW what it's doing.

      But faffing about with bits of plastic and switches is secondary to this problem. The problem is that you've given Facebook access to the mic. Maybe that was "necessary" to allow it to install on older Android? Then don't install it. That's the real problem. People will just click it anyway. It's Windows UAC all over again - give the users information and control and they just press OK the same as ever because "I need Facebook".

      Anything with "SD card access" or "camera" and "Internet connectivity" can upload what the hell it likes from your phone to the cloud. The problem is not the cloud functionality, nor the lack of a firewall, it's that you granted those apps permissions that, when combined, allow that kind of thing to happen.

      The permission model of most modern mobile devices is just fine. It's that nobody cares that's the problem. Until all their private pics end up on some rogue app's public image gallery.

    2. Re:Not just Facebook by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      And it's not at all difficult for manufacturers or even Google to put in a widget on the lock screen that shows WHAT features are being used by what apps. Facebook - little mic symbol, little camera symbol, for instance. And then you KNOW what it's doing.

      That would be a great feature actually.

    3. Re:Not just Facebook by Zarhan · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a setting that instead of blanket deny would give apps appearance that the right has been granted, and then spoof the feed with something else.

      The basic options for this is of course things like mute for audio, or missing signal from GPS. But the fun would be if you would make Facebook only hear "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" 24/7...

    4. Re:Not just Facebook by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      To be fair, installing a connected app and denying it ""Internet connectivity" doesn't make for a very useful app.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Not just Facebook by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Why does Facebook EVER need your mic?

      Because it has the ability to send an audio recording. Kinda hard to record audio if the mic doesn't work.

    6. Re:Not just Facebook by jouassou · · Score: 1

      We really need a third option "Allow, Deny, Emulate" so the app even THINKS it has the mic access but just gets silence sent to it

      This already exists in the form of XPrivacy:

      XPrivacy can prevent applications from leaking privacy-sensitive data by restricting the categories of data an application can access. XPrivacy feeds applications fake data or no data at all. It can restrict several data categories, such as contacts or location. For example, if you restrict an application's access to contacts, that application will receive an empty contacts list (don't try this with the contacts application itself without a backup). Similarly, restricting an application's access to your location will send a fake location to that application.

      Unfortunately, you have to root your phone for it to work. But in return, you can control your permissions as generally or specifically as you want, and for e.g. the location data, you can manually choose whether you want randomized coordinates, fixed coordinates, etc.

    7. Re:Not just Facebook by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I was kinda surprised at how many wanted access to the microphone and camera (that weren't sound or camera apps).

      Not to mention other sketchy things like access to your address book. My solution to this problem is very simple: if an app is asking for permissions when there is no clear reason for it to be, I don't use the app.

    8. Re:Not just Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The camera doesn't worry me too much. I can fix that with a bit of tape. The microphone does worry me though. Short of wrapping my phone/ipad/laptop in a blanket it's rather difficult to fix, particularly as it's almost certainly a surface mount mic on a multilayer board inside a case designed to pretty much self-destruct if I try to access it.

  26. "Apps" on phones by DogDude · · Score: 1

    The problem is people doing everything on their stupid phones, which make it very difficult, if not impossible, to track what's going on. At least with a real browser on a real computer, you can control the data that's being shared.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  27. First step - teach the next generation by Minupla · · Score: 1

    First step - teach the next generation.

    I'm raising a daughter, who at 6 knew what privacy is, what is and is not reasonable for other people to know about her, etc.

    We rolled it into stranger awareness, because it makes sense to group social engineering awareness, stranger awareness and privacy issues together in my opinion. Only issue we have is occasionally she got upset because her teacher used her last name in class, but that's easier to correct for.

    Seriously, every time we course-correct society successfully we start with the kids. If I teach my kid, she'll teach her friends, and her friends will teach their parents. Eventually the problem resolves itself by attrition.

    --
    On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  28. Re:Seriously? Metadata by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    I never met a data I didn't like.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  29. Don't use the FB app by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use FB on my phone... via a mobile browser. One that I only use for FB. I have a separate browser I use for websurfing. I don't let the FB browser post notifications or have access to my location. I lose a few features that way, but I can still participate in "social media" without giving FB total access to my phone and life.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Don't use the FB app by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      That's what I'll do if I ever find a reason to go to Facebook more than once a week.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:Don't use the FB app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously - remember that app that gave us access to ALL the services we wanted, from one app?

      What was that called? the browser? How neat!

    3. Re: Don't use the FB app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I always say. It's all basically coming through the same interface on mobile, too. Why anyone installs all of these spying apps is beyond me.

    4. Re: Don't use the FB app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think fb can't track you because you use a different browser, you are sadly mistaken.

    5. Re:Don't use the FB app by NotARealUser · · Score: 1

      That is all well and good, however, Facebook disabled viewing messages on their mobile website after this news came out. They now force you to install the app if you wish to view messages.

      If there is one almost smoking gun here, it is that after Facebook's app was "exposed" as potentially spying on people, they immediately worked to force you to stop using the only work around for the spying.

  30. So I guess I should have thought twice before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Friending Freddy Kruger!

  31. So-called "smart" so-called "telephones" by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    Anyone who gets duped into buying a computer they cannot control, running programs they cannot inspect, and trusting people and companies who long ago proved themselves to be untrustworthy, and is willing to pay for the privilege of buying and operating it, simply because the gadget is called a "telephone" and not a telescreen or spy computer, should expect such treatment.

    I am amazed at how many free software advocates have given in to peer pressure and bought one of those insidious devices. Aren't you taking Stallman seriously?

    1. Re:So-called "smart" so-called "telephones" by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I use a smartphone, and retain nearly as much control over it as I have over my desktop. I had to put a little work into it, such as rooting it, installing a firewall, etc., but it certainly can be done.

    2. Re:So-called "smart" so-called "telephones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you may need to spend a certain amount of money and have the right kind of phone and recent enough if need be. A friend has a name brand phone that came out in 2013, it can be rooted but there's not OS image available, the OS is too old for permission management native or otherwise so the Skype can't be denied access to the phone directory (what's called "contacts"). So in the end no Skype or any other app was ever installed.

  32. PR Fail by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    So their response to "I'm worried you may be monitoring my calls" is "Oh don't worry about that, we monitor you even when you aren't making calls"?

  33. Re:"Apps" on phones by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

    At least with a real browser on a real computer, you can control the data that's being shared.

    "Challenged Accepted", said Windows 10

  34. Regulate Social Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to prevent shenanigans like this.

  35. Come at me, bro, er, sis by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "I was wondering what it would be like to hire a prostitute."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  36. Could be? by allo · · Score: 1

    Install a Framework like XPrivacy and have a look, if it actually does. No rumors, facts!

  37. Phone is not secure by ULTROS · · Score: 0

    I have given up on my phone being secure. I treat it like its a child now.

  38. Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately I put Amazon app on my phone and now I can't change the permissions or remove it. I am going to have to change phone service I think to remove it