Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Says It's Not Secretly Recording You (fb.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In 2014 Facebook introduced a feature which can use your phone's microphone to identify songs you're listening to -- but "we don't record your conversations," they're reminding users. A mass communication professor at the University of South Florida tried discussing specific topics near her phone, then discovered Facebook appeared to be showing ads related to what she'd said. Though she wasn't convinced there was a link, the Independent newspaper reported that "The claim chimes with anecdotal reports online that the site appears to show ads for things that people have mentioned in passing."

An official statement Thursday reiterated that "Facebook does not use your phone's microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed." But another news site sees these concerns as a reminder of all the permissions users routinely grant to their apps. "Go into your phone's application settings and you'll see a whole list of what an app like Facebook has access to: your camera, your location, your contacts, and, yes, your microphone too. How about this for a warning? By downloading Facebook you give the app 'permission to record audio at any time without your confirmation.' Tom's Guide security editor Paul Wagenseil says Facebook can...listen to your conversations...but it would be illegal to do so."

Meanwhile, the FBI "can neither confirm nor deny" that it's ever tapped an Amazon Echo device.

92 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Uh-oh by marcle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Can neither confirm nor deny" doesn't sound good.

    What's better than a geo-tracking device every citizen carries that also allows access to phone conversations, texts, and emails?

    An audio feed of everything that happens inside the citizen's house, that's what.

    Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

    1. Re:Uh-oh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1
      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Uh-oh by tomhath · · Score: 1

      "Can neither confirm nor deny" is the standard answer when the question involves classified information. It means absolutely nothing.

    3. Re: Uh-oh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      On the 20the anniversary of Apple's famous 'why 1984 won't be like 1984 ad', they released a new iMac that had an iSight camera built in. I found the irony very entertaining.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Uh-oh by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      Facebook corporate does not think of your data as belonging to you, it thinks of it as belonging to them. Your posts. Your photos. Your conversations. Whatever you allow its application to hoover. It is constantly changing and expanding the list of things it knows about you, and constantly changes your controls over how that list is filtered, so you have to be hyper-aware of how it is working, and take proactive steps repeatedly to have what little control over the reuse of your data they allow.

      Ultimately, to play in their playground is to give them blanket permission to reuse anything you say or do in that playground. As a corporate practice, they clearly feel no personal obligation to you for your data. They place restrictions on how you and others like you can use your data, but no restrictions on themselves.

      That being the case, one should be very sure that the exchange is a good one. Facebook gives you a way to share your online life with others. In exchange, it can reuse the facts of your life in any way it sees fit, including monetizing it. Recording your conversations to feed you better advertisements? Of course. How is that any different from recording your posts? It isn't.

      Personally, I don't mind a retailer like Amazon having information related to transactions, but I am careful to not use them to make private transactions. There is no need for them to know that. I do mind a Facebook having all my personal facts, because first, they are ALL private as far as I'm concerned, and second, I already have a wide variety of ways to communicate with my friends. I don't need to give up my life's details to a hugely leaky public corporation who has no care for me as a person.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    5. Re:Uh-oh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

      Are you sure? (Thanks, Bruce.) Gamers often buy Vizio TVs, that seems like part of their latest shiny toy. (Vizio was one of the first to offer a super-low-latency no-processing mode.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Uh-oh by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Can neither confirm nor deny" doesn't sound good.

      What's better than a geo-tracking device every citizen carries that also allows access to phone conversations, texts, and emails?

      An audio feed of everything that happens inside the citizen's house, that's what.

      Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

      Remember, it's not secret if they tell you they can't deny it!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    7. Re:Uh-oh by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      But - oh! - "privacy advocates have concern here."

  2. That would have been creepy by drolli · · Score: 1

    if they managed to activate my mic trouch my noscript extenstion and without me installing the app, logging in, and their websites being filtered by my proxy.....

  3. Oh sure by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But...that's exactly what they'd say if they were secretly recording me, though.

    I mean, do you really think they'd come right out and say, "Yeah, we're secretly recording you"?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Oh sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they came right out and told us "we're secretly recording you," it wouldn't be a secret anymore. And thus their admission would become false. So they cannot honestly tell us that they're secretly recording us.

    2. Re:Oh sure by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      "I mean, do you really think they'd come right out and say, "Yeah, we're secretly recording you"?"

      Given that that would make the resulting lawsuits an open and shut case, no, I don't expect Facebook to say (more accurately) "Yeah, we're illegally recording you."

      But if you have clicked on the permission for Facebook to access your microphone, which is an act you did not something that happens automatically unless you opt out, then you'd have a hard time arguing that it's secret.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. I believe them by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, come on, it's hardly a secret.

    1. Re:I believe them by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    2. Re:I believe them by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it.

      This is why so many people have a piece of opaque tape covering the webcams on their laptops when not in use

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  5. Complete lie and a distracting story by axewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Facebook is not recording you, it would be illegal to do so, so therefore they are not doing it!"
    How little self-respect you must have if you believe any such claim as this after the existence of mass surveillance has been revealed.

    All of these little stories, which are posted here almost every day, are meant to nibble away at your outrage and underhandedly restore your trust in the government by soothsaying.

    There is nothing mitigating the mass surveillance conspiracy. There are no checks or balances. As a society we looked at the evidence and did not act on it. There is no oversight.
    That means it's going ahead and expanding.

    There can be no freedom for people who are under total surveillance. It's life imprisonment. It's a hard and fast limit on your potential. Are you really content to have your own humanity and that of your children progressively reduced until there is nothing left? Most people are. If you're not, and you don't change your pattern of action radically, there will be no hope left for you or anyone else.

    1. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to object to the term "sheeple", which was usually applied to the majority of people who just can't be bothered to figure out how much of their private lives they're giving away (and the private lives of their friends, relatives and children, too) in return for some shiny, useless app.

      I was wrong. "Sheeple" describes these people well. My major concern now is that their actions have endangered my privacy and freedom, as well as the privacy and freedom of those I care about.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.

      A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.

      Baaaaah.

    3. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Not "recording" as in " keeping a copy"

      But, monitoring what's going on by streaming sounds picked up by the microphone? Sure! That's not "recording"!

    4. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by nasch · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, you'll notice that she's not sold either.

    5. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Every time I see a great clips I think shearing the sheeple.

    6. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.

      A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.

      Baaaaah.

      Really; what are the chances that from following somebody's web browsing, you will discover information similar to what you might discover by listening to them?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    7. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by jc42 · · Score: 1

      This guy fucks.

      So you don't? You have my sympathy ... ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      The overall point applies. Or, in the language you understand so well, "Baaaaaaaaaaaa".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Complete lie and a distracting story by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. There's always that.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  6. Nobody has the intention to build a wall by NotInHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, facebook is working really hard at becoming the most evil company. Microsoft, your title is in danger!

    1. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      At this point, even if Microsoft and Google were to somehow join forces the new entity wouldn't be anywhere as evil as Facebook.

    2. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But you did choose to use Windows in the first place.

    3. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Microsoft, your title is in danger!

      When Facebook nukes my computer, then Microsoft is in danger. At the moment Facebook is a long way behind.

    4. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has never forced you to provide your name or any other identifying information to them. If you never had an install of Windows, you'd never be prompted to upgrade. In other words, exactly the same as Facebook, from the perspective of your personal interaction with them.

      That makes you an illogical and biased idiot.

    5. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I'm sure Windows 12 can access your microphone too. I haven't heard Microsoft deny using it, but I'm sure they would if you'd only ask.

    6. Re:Nobody has the intention to build a wall by nasch · · Score: 1

      There are so many companies more evil than Microsoft...

  7. facebook should be made to pay by sittingnut · · Score: 2

    apart from privacy aspect, there is a property ownership aspect to facebok's use of information about users.

    facebook ( and google and other so called social media) are primarily ad sellers.
    they sell ads with help of content created by users for users(themselves and others), which is different from say tv or newspapers which create/buy content to sell ads.
    shouldn't users have a right to monetize the content that is being used by facebook etc? shouldn't they have a cut from ad revenue same way tv program makers or reporters for newspapers?

    and shouldn't users have right not to sell money making content, which is their property, without receiving payment?

    while how courts will view the privacy concerns of users are uncertain, i think law will come on the side of users on the ownership of their property in the end.

    few years down the road, facebook and google or their successors probably will end up with very thin margins.

  8. "We can do that - but it would be wrong." by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those of us of a certain age remember that phrase well.

    But if you've explicitly granted permission for Facebook to record audio from your device, at any time, without notification -- in what sense would it be "illegal" for them to do so?

    1. Re:"We can do that - but it would be wrong." by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      if you've explicitly granted permission for Facebook to record audio from your device, at any time, without notification -- in what sense would it be "illegal" for them to do so?

      The idea is that no contract can be against the law. But the point assumes there is a law against recording you, and I do not see which one it is.

    2. Re: "We can do that - but it would be wrong." by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Some states only require One participant involved to be aware of the recording, in which case this would not be illegal as Facebook is aware of it.

      IANAL, but I don't believe this applies to a discussion where the party (FB) doing the recording isn't even known to be a part of the fucking discussion. It would be like me calling my wife, an having someone else listening/recording our phone sex w/o our knowledge.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re: "We can do that - but it would be wrong." by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but I don't believe this applies to a discussion where the party (FB) doing the recording isn't even known to be a part of the fucking discussion. It would be like me calling my wife, an having someone else listening/recording our phone sex w/o our knowledge.

      Actually, it would be more like... well, what it is: a listening device in your house (or wherever you are).

      This actually demonstrates the fundamental shift in technology that has occurred in the past couple decades. It used to be that the most standard method of spying was interception of a communication, like tapping into a phone line to hear what was being transferred over that line.

      Infiltration was often harder -- it would require you to actually physically go "bug" someone's house by installing your own hardware and transmitter (rather than relying on voluntary use of a phone line to carry information out).

      But now rather than choosing a time or a place to speak into an electronic device (like a phone or a general microphone), we instead tend to carry these devices with us at all times, where they can theoretically be activated and programmed to activate remotely -- and can listen in whenever and wherever you have that device. Bottom line is that your phone or tablet or whatever is MUCH more insidious than a traditional "phone tap" ever could be.

    4. Re:"We can do that - but it would be wrong." by Patersmith · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking it would depend on the country. In the US, it would probably not be illegal in any sense. Privacy is completely upside down there. In Canada, it might be a different story. Companies are only allowed to collect private information with your explicit agreement, and only for the purposes for which permission was given.

  9. I keep an iron grip on what my phone does by TigerPlish · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...or at least as much as an iron grip as Apple allows me.

    But I tell ya what -- Facetwat is not on my phone. (yes, Facetwat is my derisive mashup of Facebook and Twitter.) And no, Twitter isn't on my phone. Neither is Tinder, or Snapchat or whatnot. You wanna reach me? Email me. Text me. iMessage me. Or fucking call me.

    I honestly think Facetwat is a front for the NSA / FBI. Call be paranoid, call me whack-job, but Facetwat just seems too goddamned convenient.

    And for the curious, this post was indeed lubricated liberally by hard carnauba wax and something Scottish and unpronounceable. *

    *spent the afternoon waxing the english shitbox, and the early evening with a fine puertorican cigar and something scottish and unpronouncable. And end to a good day, devoid of Facetwat. How peaceful it is!

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:I keep an iron grip on what my phone does by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I honestly think Facetwat is a front for the NSA / FBI. Call be paranoid, call me whack-job

      I'll just call you ignorant. A lot of Facebook's funding came from the CIA. In contrast, the NSA and Google have a revolving door for new hires. Look up inter-agency rivalry some time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Meh. This is a surprise? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    Who here installs such an app and simply takes the default permissions? Well, probably not anyone that reads Slashdot. And the other Facebook users? they don't care.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Meh. This is a surprise? by nasch · · Score: 1

      On android previous to version 6 (ie most devices) it is all or nothing unless you jump through some hoops including rooting. So I'd say even on /. probably a lot of people install an app and take the default permissions.

  11. "I did not brush my ass with your toothbrush.." by willworkforbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "every night, while you were sleeping"

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:"I did not brush my ass with your toothbrush.." by antdude · · Score: 2

      Why do you even have a donkey? [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:"I did not brush my ass with your toothbrush.." by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Why do you even have a donkey? [grin]

      mod up! mod up!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    3. Re:"I did not brush my ass with your toothbrush.." by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      That's cool. And I didn't swap my toothbrush with yours, before and after I went to bed...

      Hey, who replaced my toothbrush with a copy, identical down to the atomic level?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  12. Of course they don't by Z80a · · Score: 2

    They probably use some text to speech algorithm first, and then feed their massive insane AI with the data that uses it to determine things like if the person is a victim/perpetrator to ring a phone somewhere with cryptic words, or the brand of toothpaste the person use or usually both.

  13. well, listen by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Just because a certain employee of a certain company keeps asking you to use his underage prostitutes as carriers for the drugs he keeps buying from you, doesn't mean that you have to be so paranoid as to think that he is using his company's app's ability to listen to the sounds you make (in order to cut you out as a middle man in this cocaine transaction). It simply doesn't follow. It may be true. But you don't have to be so cynical as to believe that it is true.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  14. Headline wrong again by Kant_resistor · · Score: 2

    Facebook says it's not using your microphone to inform ads or to change your News feed. It says nothing whatsoever about recording you. This is the classic non-denial denial.

  15. Not secretly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Like they said. They're not *secretly* doing it.
    It's all in the EULA

    1. Re:Not secretly. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Like they said. They're not *secretly* doing it. It's all in the EULA

      I used to start all my programs with a comment "Guaranteed to have no undetectable bugs"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  16. What does legality have to do with it. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "...By downloading Facebook you give the app 'permission to record audio at any time without your confirmation.' Tom's Guide security editor Paul Wagenseil says Facebook can...listen to your conversations...but it would be illegal to do so."

    OK, first of all, this statement seems to contradict itself. IANAL, but if you give permission, chances are it's legal in many circumstances.

    That said, what the hell does legality have to do with mega-corps today? Do you honestly think you have a chance in hell against them in court? Do you think they already know your chance when they skirt or blatantly ignore the law?

    Facebook knows the power and control they wield, even over lawmakers. Death and taxes? Yeah, seems the too-big-to-fail social media master will avoid both of those.

  17. Airdroid by ronmon · · Score: 1

    It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

    1. Re:Airdroid by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

      Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Airdroid by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

      Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.

      "Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company created a popular flashlight app for Android devices that the FTC charged deceived consumers with a privacy policy that did not reflect the app’s use of personal data and presented consumers with a false choice on whether to share their information." https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    3. Re:Airdroid by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl.

      Too bad it didn't include some time in a Max security prison.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  18. Of course we're not recording you by BarneyGuarder · · Score: 1

    If we told you, it wouldn't be a secret.

    I can't believe anyone trusts Facebook.

  19. Our man Flint by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    In the 60's spy spoof films starring James Coburn, one of the bad guy organizations was the ubiquitous Phone Company, and they could monitor everything near the old land lines that they owned and leased to every household, and were everywhere in public in the form of payphones. Ma Bell took on a Futurerama Mom like persona.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Our man Flint by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes. TPC (The Phone Company)...I remember it well.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Our man Flint by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      In the 60's spy spoof films starring James Coburn, one of the bad guy organizations was the ubiquitous Phone Company

      I've not see the Flint films, but 'The President's Analyst' (which was also James Coburn) did exactly this.

  20. This is exactly one of the reasons... by zuki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...why I do not currently have it installed on my mobile device.

    I found their mobile app to be so intrusive, I uninstalled it after a day of trying it out. The cherry on the cake was that of course, you can't even turn the freaking thing off, which is what I had first tried to do unsuccessfully. Only by going online and searching for this did the bleak reality of it become apparent.

    You might call me naive, but I had never come across an app that you can't turn off. The only way to stop it is to deinstall it altogether and wipe the cached data. I guess it must have been determined to be a good feature in order to 'maximize shareholder value' ? Because obviously it's not the sort of thing that can just happen by accident.

    So given this heavy-handed approach I wouldn't call it far-fetched in the least that they would decide to parse audio in order to squeeze in contextual advertising.

    Meantime, this really brings back on the table the greater issue which is: why are people falling for this free service when they are giving so much more value with all of their personal data than what it would cost as a subscription service of say.... $3 a month or less. I hope that a credible open-source alternative does surface that can perform most of the same functions without the 'walled garden' and incredibly pushy approach they are increasingly taking, not to say anything of their arbitrary algorithmic censorship and heavy-handed monetizing initiatives.

    1. Re:This is exactly one of the reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope that a credible open-source alternative does surface that can perform most of the same functions without the 'walled garden' and incredibly pushy approach they are increasingly taking, not to say anything of their arbitrary algorithmic censorship and heavy-handed monetizing initiatives.

      The tech is already there. You can build a social network to call your own. Now it's up to you to find an audience. Good luck!

    2. Re:This is exactly one of the reasons... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      This makes me glad I use a phone made by a company that puts me before the developer. I have never given camera or mic permissions to the Facebook app, and I don't intend to do so now.

    3. Re:This is exactly one of the reasons... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I found their mobile app to be so intrusive, I uninstalled it after a day of trying it out.

      Exactly. I rarely use Facebook, but I do have an account mostly to monitor what other people may say and do regarding me. (Otherwise, for example, people would take photos of me and post them online anyway -- this way at least I can see a lot of them when they tag me and know what's going on.)

      Anyhow, a few years ago I did post very occasionally and I started to check in a little more frequently (maybe even every day or so). When I got a new tablet, I thought -- hmm, maybe I'll install the Facebook app.

      But I never got to the installation. It just threw up this gigantic set of permissions required unlike any other app I've ever seen. There was no way I would allow ANY app on my device that asked for so many permissions. I can't fathom how so many users just blithely click through that screen without realizing what Facebook is asking to do with their device.

      (After that, I truly became disturbed by what Facebook had become, so I am almost never active on it anymore.)

  21. "secretly" by Chas · · Score: 1

    In other words "read the EULA", there's nothing "secret" about the recording.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  22. Re:Yet everyone here is all mad at Microsoft... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

    It makes Microsoft exactly the same as everyone else, but late as usual.

  23. Re:It's our own fault by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Why is it even legal to push a 1503 pages document on normal people as binding agreements?

  24. Re:Yet everyone here is all mad at Microsoft... by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    Yea, this boggles my mind somewhat. I realize M$ is always a worthy target, but "privacy" means something very different now that there are orders of magnitudes more devices present in our lives with microphones and sensors than it did in 1995 when you were lucky if your lone work PC recognized your SoundBlaster card at all.

    Railing against W10 is meaningless. You want to protest unnecessary telemetry and data collection, storage, and evaluation, it's Google (read: Alphabet) and Facebook you should be worried about, with Apple as a shifty-eyed honorable mention... not because of closed source, but because of unclear engineering.

    Side note: We're all linux and OSS advocates here, and that's fine. But "open source" is meaningless at the consumer level -- consumers don't have the ability to do meaningful code review, and the scale of HOBE hacks means that the advanced gcc-is-programmed-to-replace-login-compile-code hacks are easy enough to create when the payoff is 100M vulnerabilities.

  25. Remember light speed briefs... by haedus · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Remember light speed briefs... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      At least they aren't piping in ads into our dreams... ...Yet.

      Which reminds me, does anybody know which Android app(s) now pipes ads onto my phone? And, in particular, which pipe in videos with sound, that just start up at random times and start blaring?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  26. Always two there are by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget Zynga.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:Always two there are by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Zynga is only a danger to its own employees, indie developers who make ripoff-worthy games, and people who can voluntarily trap themselves in a Skinner box.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

    Or, if you are on Android 6, just revoke all the permissions.

  28. Re:Happens a bit too often to be coincidental. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    How many times do you discuss things and how many times does it happen? I happen to talk or think about songs often, and actually every once in a while, a song that I was just thinking about is played on the radio. That doesn't mean that the radio DJs are scanning my brain, that only means that I think a lot about music and that I listen to a lot of radio.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thin by jouassou · · Score: 1

    You can, but I wouldn't say 'easily'. Unless you've got Android 6, you need to root your phone and install XPrivacy in order to block individual permissions for an app, and that's not something most people would do.

  30. Lol by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Whatever, Skynet.

  31. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Could being the key word. The thing is why would anyone do that? And how many people do you think 'they' have just listening to eveyone's conversation, reading everyone's tweets, browsing your facebook and so on and so on? From what some people say you'd think the NSA et al employ half the population to listen to the other half.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  32. They've upgraded the app by oobayly · · Score: 1

    It now sends you a reassuring message telling you it's not recording you when it hears you talking to your friends about the Facebook recording feature.

  33. Officially Old by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home.

    Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.

    1. Re:Officially Old by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home. Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.

      Recall the old saying, "No man is a hero to his butler".
      if you want something that really responds to your every need, even before you need it, then it has to know a whole lot of stuff about you and about what you are doing at any given time. Until the individual device has enough processing power to keep all that data local and analyze it, it has to be uploaded en masse. And of course, that makes it salable.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  34. Why is this still a thing? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    The damn wording on the permissions is set by Google, not by Facebook. They're ominous sounding because they cite the most extreme cases that the devices *could* be used for, so that people don't come crying later when things are used in ways that weren't expected. Lastly, the giant list of permissions set by the FB apps really don't go out of line with everything the apps do. Want to be able to take pictures and videos from the app? There's your camera permission (and by extension, I believe, the microphone permission for video). Want it to update your contacts with your FB list? There's the access to your contact list. Want Messenger to handle SMS? There's the SMS permission... Every permission it requests can be justified by a legitimate function within the application.

  35. Naivete by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Oh, the naivete of people who think that clicking on a little picture somewhere that changes from "ON" to "OFF" actually does what it says it does.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  36. Other explanations by XXongo · · Score: 2
    I get Fossil watch ads frequently without talking about watches (nor searching anything related), so I will suggest maybe this one is coincidence, or more likely the attention effect (you don't notice the Fossil ads until Fossil is brought to the front of your attention, then they seem everywhere).

    Or possibly reverse causality: the topic of Fossil watches came up because the company was running a web campaign and buying a lot of ads.

  37. More in the link by XXongo · · Score: 1

    The actual statement from Facebook continued on beyond the single sentence quoted in the summary: "We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates."

  38. You may have forgotten by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Or maybe you just didn't notice, but in its early days the facebook app did bad things to a bunch of people's contacts. I can't remember if it just deleted all the ones that didn't have a facebook account from your phone (which is how I remember it) or something more evil, but it's been garbage since always and while I commend you for removing it quickly, it's always appalled me that people were willing to install a facebook app on their phones at all when their phones already included web browsers and fb works just fine that way. I imagine they imagined that notifications would be worth it, but they aren't.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Exposed framework + CameraLess by D,Petkow · · Score: 1

    Root + Exposed framework + CameraLess = cool control over cameras / convert smartphone to dumphone. I guess there is a similar app for the microphone as well

  40. Re:Happens a bit too often to be coincidental. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    What the professor mentioned also has happened to me the last year or so. Discussing something with a friend, my wife or someone else and seing a very related advertisement next time I log onto Facebook, google something, check the news etc. And before you ask, no I didn't google the topic during the discussion. It is a very awkward feeling.

    I was talking about sloths with somebody the other day by random chance (not a big topic of conversation or web browsing), and when we walked outside immediately afterwards there was a poster stapled on the nearest telephone pole advertising "SLOTH: The Party". Facebook works fast.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  41. Re:Yet everyone here is all mad at Microsoft... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Post about Windows 10 and it is endless streams of "oh my god the evilz!"

    Yea, yea, the privacy train has left, you have to be a virtual luddite to have even the hope of privacy in 2016..

    Those people clinging to Windows 7 out of the delusion that they are secure and "private" are just kidding themselves.

    Microsoft is late to this game and is only doing stuff that others have done for some time.

    ---

    Note: That doesn't make what Microsoft does "right", it just makes it the same as everyone else.

    That's why I use "burner" laptops and throw them away after every use.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  42. Re:Yes they do. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Facebook profiles, Google tracks, CIA coordinates with a vast network of cunts-out-for-a-paycheck.

    FBI are 17% moles.

    All of this shit dies. Jesus is coming.

    That's why I learned Arabic and always speak that, so nobody can listen in. What could go wrong?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  43. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Ok, that comment was unnecessarily long.

    As an OPSEC manager, I am putting together a warning brief for all personnel in our organization about that app.

    Facebook should modify the app to remove the ask on mic permissions, or the brief goes out.

    listen to you? all the devices have cameras these days.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  44. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thin by gzuckier · · Score: 2

    You can, but I wouldn't say 'easily'. Unless you've got Android 6, you need to root your phone and install XPrivacy in order to block individual permissions for an app, and that's not something most people would do.

    I suppose somebody has to point out that any permission that can be blocked via software can be quietly reinstated by other software..

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  45. Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    nah, they just store the lot... and then when somebody powerful wants to fuck you over for whatever reason, they'll look through what they have stored on you and find something to hammer you with

    there is a whole building full of disks recording every bad thing ever said about Future Emperor Trump.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.