Slashdot Mirror


A Facebook Employee Asked a Reporter To Turn Off His Phone So Facebook Couldn't Track Its Location (businessinsider.com)

Steve Kovach, writing for BusinessInsider: To corporate giants like Facebook, leaks to rivals or the media are a cardinal sin. That notion was clear in a new Wired story about Facebook's rocky time over the last two years. The story talks about how Facebook was able to find two leakers who told a Gizmodo reporter about its news operations. But one source for the Wired story highlighted just how concerned employees are about how their company goes after leakers. According to the story, the source, a current Facebook employee, asked a Wired reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook wouldn't be able to use location tracking and see that the two were close to each other for the meeting. The Wired's 11,000-word wide-ranging piece, for which it spoke with more than 50 current and former Facebook employees, gives us an inside look at how the company has been struggling to curb spread of fake news; battling internal discrimination among employees; and becoming furious when anything leaks to the media. Another excerpt from the story: The day after Fearnow (a contractor who leaked information to a Gizmodo reporter) took that second screenshot was a Friday. When he woke up after sleeping in, he noticed that he had about 30 meeting notifications from Facebook on his phone. When he replied to say it was his day off, he recalls, he was nonetheless asked to be available in 10 minutes. Soon he was on a video-conference with three Facebook employees, including Sonya Ahuja, the company's head of investigations. According to his recounting of the meeting, she asked him if he had been in touch with Nunez (the Gizmodo reporter, who eventually published this and this). He denied that he had been. Then she told him that she had their messages on Gchat, which Fearnow had assumed weren't accessible to Facebook. He was fired. "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it," she instructed him.

304 comments

  1. Do the interview over Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Problem avoided. This also will avoid any possibility of anatomically embedded FB chips being used to suss out the leaker as well.

  2. Is it me or... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it me or does that company become more and more like some kind of cult?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Is it me or... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hydra...without the scary red skull looking guy.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. You can selectively deny apps access to location. Why don't most people do this?

    3. Re:Is it me or... by xski · · Score: 1

      He's wearing a Mark Mask. Shhhh!!

    4. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be worse. Apple could buy Facebook and limit access to FB with Apple hardware only.

    5. Re:Is it me or... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Hydra...without the scary red skull looking guy."

      Are you *sure*? Have you seen what Mr. Zuckerberg looks like when he takes his face off?

      Hail Facebook!

      [just kidding, of course]

      --
      William George
    6. Re:Is it me or... by HanzoSpam · · Score: 2

      At least you could then avoid it by not using Apple hardware.

      I'm not seeing a downside to this.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    7. Re:Is it me or... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can think of better than that would be for Sony to buy Facebook and limit access to FB with non-Sony hardware.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Is it me or... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Is it me or... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      That wold be better - not worse since then most of us wouldn't have to worry about FB anymore.

      B.t.w, the article should have linked to the Wired article directly instead of going over the summary at Business Insider.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:Is it me or... by zeugma-amp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it me or does that company become more and more like some kind of cult?

      Have you seen the movie The Circle? My first thought after seeing it was "Facebook". I find it to be extremely interesting that the wikipedia article linked above makes no mention whatsoever of the parallels. It was a really creepy movie.

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    11. Re:Is it me or... by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, just not install the app.

    12. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. You can selectively deny apps access to location. Why don't most people do this?

      You can disable location all you want. I only need your accelerometer data coupled with street maps of all cities in the world to know where you have been/are. Piece of cake.

    13. Re:Is it me or... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      After making these settings on my phone many, many times and finding they just undo themselves again at the next upgrade I have long given up.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TFS reads like only one party needed to turn off their phone, and that for some reason it couldn't be the facebook employee. So.. yeah, definitely cult-like.

    15. Re:Is it me or... by umghhh · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes the cricle - a lady embraces the new absolute surveillance as it allows her to connect with fellow humans and the bad white man who did not appreciate the full transparency all that much dies one can say in hushed into death as an hunted animal running from the dogs. I exaggerate of course but then my neighbours told me many times they see nothing wrong in absolute transparency. Majority accepts the new brave world. What else can they do? The 'good doers' like Zuckerberg, Soros & Co do what they can to improve the world. The only problem I have with it is that I cannot escape from this paradise.

    16. Re: Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there was a major phone platform that blocked access to the accelerometer without user consent !

    17. Re: Is it me or... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Considering how in accurate the accelerometers are, it sounds about as likely as that blind driving scene in Taken 2.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    18. Re:Is it me or... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Before GPS they used "dead reckoning" in car map applications to take car speed and direction and map it to somewhere on the map. It could take a little while but eventually works. You draw a line with turns while driving, and the longer and more turns, the more you whittle down the possible matches.

      GPS speeds this up but doesn't replace it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Is it me or... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That shit's not even accurate or stable enough for determining which way I'm holding my phone.

    20. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will throw a fiver in towards it if Apple agrees to block it from andorid.

      Good riddance to bad rubbish

    21. Re:Is it me or... by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      "Have you seen what Mr. Zuckerberg looks like when he takes his face off?"

      He will most likely look like either Nicolas Cage or John Travolta.

    22. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What car map applications were around before GPS?

    23. Re:Is it me or... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I didn't. FB still is sending strange "Do you know...?" things to my dummy account.

    24. Re:Is it me or... by imrahilj · · Score: 2

      This was my question too, so I looked it up and holy cow, there was indeed pre-gps dead reckoning based car navigation. https://www.fastcompany.com/30...

    25. Re:Is it me or... by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Interesting...are they people you actually know?

    26. Re:Is it me or... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Thank you for sharing that. I vaguely remember hearing those at the time, but completely forgot about Etak. It was an interesting read.

    27. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the movie The Circle? My first thought after seeing it was "Facebook". I find it to be extremely interesting that the wikipedia article linked above makes no mention whatsoever of the parallels. It was a really creepy movie.

      Actually, when I watched the movie, I was thinking of Google more than FB. :p

    28. Re: Is it me or... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You might be underestimating the ability to continually error correct to connect the missing map segments.

      You should learn to program and take a "how to program a self-driving car" free online class. Regular idiots off the street are programming their own self-driving vacuum cleaners, often using just an accelerometer and a contact sensor on the front! High error rate does not automatically mean that the algorithm isn't able to predict your location accurately.

    29. Re: Is it me or... by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was not amused.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    30. Re:Is it me or... by poptix · · Score: 1

      It's called an inertial navigation system.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Check out this system from 1981: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not true.
    31. Re: Is it me or... by schure · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your have a shity cellphone.

    32. Re: Is it me or... by nowwith25percentmore · · Score: 1

      You might appreciate the movie "The Circle", which tells the story of a social media employee and the company cult. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt4287...

    33. Re: Is it me or... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You should learn to program and take a "how to program a self-driving car" free online class. Regular idiots off the street are programming their own self-driving vacuum cleaners, often using just an accelerometer and a contact sensor on the front!

      I'm guessing you are trolling here but just had to comment to make sure you know the difference in difficulty between a self driving car and a Roomba.

    34. Re: Is it me or... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If the sensor is good enough to allow the applications he wants to work and the location spying apps not to work, I'd say that's pretty much the sweet spot for quality.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Is it me or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, Rorschach

    36. Re:Is it me or... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Yep. They want my dummy accounts to friend each other, too...

    37. Re: Is it me or... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You apparently are unfamiliar with the programming.

      You don't learn how to program a real self-driving car in a free online class called "how to program a self-driving car." What you learn is the high-level algorithms. What you program in the class is a computer simulation similar to a roomba. What students actually build on their own after taking the class is almost always a roomba-competitor, except when it does even less and just drives around chasing the cat.

    38. Re: Is it me or... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You apparently are unfamiliar with the programming. You don't learn how to program a real self-driving car in a free online class called "how to program a self-driving car."

      You are apparently unfamiliar with threaded conversations. I didn't say that.

  3. Facebook creeps me out by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But one source for the Wired story highlighted just how concerned employees are about how their company goes after leakers. According to the story, the source, a current Facebook employee, asked a Wired reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook wouldn't be able to use location tracking and see that the two were close to each other for the meeting.

    And people wonder why I don't want to have anything to do with Facebook. If Facebook really is tracking people's location with that amount of accessible detail then I will never ever have an account with them and I will block them by every means I have available.

    1. Re:Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't need you to have an account with them in order to track you. They create a shadow profile for you and log your movement across the web using their various web properties and associated sites.

    2. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is almost too good to be true if you're a spook. Your marks voluntarily put their entire lives in it for you. Truly amazing.

    3. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Facebook really is tracking people's location with that amount of accessible detail then I will never ever have an account with them and I will block them by every means I have available.

      Of course they are, and whether you realise or not, you gave them permission when you installed the app ... because that thing wants access to pretty much EVERYTHING. And you can bet your ass they're mining your phone for all sorts of stuff you aren't aware of.

      From this:

      -Your contacts, call logs, text messages. This essentially means that the company can see who all are in your contacts, call them, message them and also see who youâ(TM)ve been in contact with. The app can also make modifications in your deviceâ(TM)s calendar.
      -Your location, which enables them to know where you are.
      -Your camera, which means the app has permission to click images, record videos and audio via the microphone too.
      -Your internal storage, which means they can see files on your phone as well as delete them.
      -The app can access your WiFi, change the wallpaper, network connectivity and much more.

      Fuck that.

      And, just as bad, so many websites have embedded links to Facebook in their page that they track much of where you go ... if you have an account they match it up, if they don't, they do anyway.

      My browsers all block Facebook outright, because I simply do not trust Facebook even in the slightest.

      Facebook exists to collect your data and monetise your life, and I refuse to accept that. If you have the app installed, you've given the ability to read everything you do.

      How is anybody even slightly surprised by this?

    4. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that ought to work real well with JavaScript disabled.

    5. Re: Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It does. You don't need JavaScript to do tracking. Wow.

    6. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And I make it my game to dis-track them. With a combination of blockers and deliberately feeding false information, you can pretty quickly create a totally bogus profile of yourself. And my "targeted" ads (the ones I allow to pass to gauge my success) sure reflect that...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: Facebook creeps me out by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Most of that is only Android. You can turn off the few things that FB has access to very easily in iOS.

    8. Re:Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Are there browser plugins that send false information? That would be interesting.

    9. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may make a shadow profile of you, but they can't do anything with it. If they did and you found out, you could sue them for basically as much as you wanted, as they can't point to their EULA and say "but you said we could".

    10. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's "you" and "app" kemosabe? do you think the guy determined to block facebook has put their dumb app on his phone?

    11. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need you to have an account with them in order to track you. They create a shadow profile for you and log your movement across the web using their various web properties and associated sites.

      Then they plead complete ignorance for all the bots and fake accounts all over their network. "What that Texas mother of two posting about herbal remedies is actually posting from a Malaysian click farm. We had no idea."

    12. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Putin has stated that the Americans have created a better KGB than the KGB ever could have.

    13. Re:Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Aww that is adorable if you really believe that!

    14. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      P2P tracking cookie swapping would be neat too. Poison the hell out of those stalking databases.

    15. Re:Facebook creeps me out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That part they can do for their own internal use by correlating any public data.

      They have his location data, his Google Chat data (hangouts?), and other stuff. ... what? Hold on, something is wrong here. People require some measure of privacy, and the capacity to peer into private conversations on other platforms is simply unacceptable.

      We'll have to start a regulatory push to provide capacity for non-breakable end-to-end encryption in text messaging and private messenger applications, perhaps as a legally-recognized implication of using the words "secure", "private", or "privacy" to describe conversations over these mediums. So "Facebook Messenger" can tell Facebook everything you say, in plain text, on their servers, as long as it's not described by Facebook as "Secure" or "Private"; whereas a messenger such as WhatsApp using double-ratchet end-to-end can claim your conversations are "Private", so long as the application is designed with the good-faith intent (meaning yes, you have to use secure protocols and encryption algorithms) to ensure no entity besides the communicating parties can read the messages.

    16. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You don't need it, but that's how they do it. If they decide to use other methods you can adapt to block those too, but right now it's unnecessary. Wow.

    17. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need you to have an account with them in order to track you. They create a shadow profile for you and log your movement across the web using their various web properties and associated sites.

      They have only a couple of hundred domains. Easy to block.

    18. Re: Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, that is not how "they" do it.

    19. Re:Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No. Think about every website that has Facebook integration (most popular ones). Even Slashdot tracks you for Microsoft's purposes. They probably have a Facebook tracker as well in one of the third party trackers.

    20. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Alypius · · Score: 2

      That's along the lines of the post-Cold War joke about how the CIA and KGB spooks got together for drinks and started discussing who had the hardest job. The CIA said they had it rough because Soviet society was so closed that it made it extremely difficult to nurture informants and get info out of the country. The KGB laughed and said they had it worse because American society was so open and sharing that it was impossible to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio to the point where useful intelligence could be gathered.

    21. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Facebook really is tracking people's location with that amount of accessible detail then I will never ever have an account with them and I will block them by every means I have available.

      # Block Facebook IPv4
      127.0.0.1 api.ak.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 api.connect.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 api.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 app.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 ar-ar.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 badge.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 blog.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
      127.0.0.1 de-de.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 developers.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 es-la.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 external.ak.fbcdn.net
      127.0.0.1 facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 facebook.de
      127.0.0.1 facebook.fr
      127.0.0.1 fb.me
      127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
      127.0.0.1 fr-fr.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 hi-in.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 it-it.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 ja-jp.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 profile.ak.fbcdn.net
      127.0.0.1 pt-br.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 ssl.connect.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
      127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
      127.0.0.1 www.facebook.de
      127.0.0.1 www.facebook.fr
      127.0.0.1 zh-cn.facebook.com
      # Block Facebook IPv6
      fe80::1%lo0 facebook.com
      fe80::1%lo0 login.facebook.com
      fe80::1%lo0 www.login.facebook.com
      fe80::1%lo0 fbcdn.net
      fe80::1%lo0 www.fbcdn.net
      fe80::1%lo0 fbcdn.com
      fe80::1%lo0 www.fbcdn.com
      fe80::1%lo0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
      fe80::1%lo0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
      fe80::1%lo0 connect.facebook.net
      fe80::1%lo0 www.connect.facebook.net
      fe80::1%lo0 apps.facebook.com ::1 www.facebook.com ::1 facebook.com ::1 login.facebook.com ::1 www.login.facebook.com ::1 fbcdn.net ::1 www.fbcdn.net ::1 fbcdn.com ::1 www.fbcdn.com ::1 static.ak.fbcdn.net ::1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com ::1 connect.facebook.net ::1 www.connect.facebook.net ::1 apps.facebook.com
      # block IPs above

      You're welcome.

    22. Re: Facebook creeps me out by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      No one should be running a facebook executable on their device, its straight up spyware/malware.

      --
      Good-bye
    23. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Please, do tell.

    24. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if I am blocking their domains, that integration effectively does not exist for me.

      You are seriously starting to come off as some sort of facebook shill, spreading FUD about what it takes to block facebook in an attempt to make people give up and accept it.

    25. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where do I put these entries?

    26. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Xylantiel · · Score: 2

      I would argue it shouldn't even be available in the app stores. We only pretend it isn't spyware/malware.

    27. Re: Facebook creeps me out by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Load a 1px image from the adserver's domain. It's the oldest trick in the book.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    28. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No shit. Show me an example of any site doing that for Facebook, without using JavaScript.

    29. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple...dont use facebook. And otherwise, use free, gpl software. Especially on mobiles. Icecat is great. And while you're at it, listen to all rms has to say, he's the Cassandra of our time.

    30. Re:Facebook creeps me out by fafalone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Facebook recently went so far over the line I'd hope a civil suit might even have a chance... the mobile app is taking recent photos, uploading them Facebooks servers, and asking if you want to share them, without having any ability to turn off the "feature" short of revoking access to photos through the app manager entirely (so you can't even upload the photos you do want to share). Whenever this is brought up in the support forum, the thread is locked.

    31. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a host file on Windows, you fucking retard

    32. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much all ads use javascript.

      Just install NoScript, don't allow any exceptions, and then count how many ads you see.

    33. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook can read your contacts, your text messages, your location and can take pictures, listen in on you whenever it feels like?

      Facebook seems to have the same functionality as a rootkit.

      Captcha: abducted

    34. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      No, they acquired their information by legal means. It is only HIPAA relevant data or gov't employees performing their gov't duties where there is any meaningful concept of privacy.

    35. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. Show me an example of any site doing that for Facebook, without using JavaScript.

      Not FaceBook, but LinkedIn :

      <img height="1" width="1" style="display:none;" alt="" src="https://dc.ads.linkedin.com/collect/?pid=113712&fmt=gif" />

      You know where that comes from ? Yep, this websites main page. :-D

      And I must say I'm a bit miffeled about your "without using JavaScript" addition. Almost as if you have zero idea about how an IMG tag works ...

    36. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You know where that comes from ? Yep, this websites main page. :-D

      That's funny. It's actually in the "noscript" section of the site meaning the jackasses intentionally put it there to track people with scripts disabled. Thanks, now I have a good reason to go and block the entire LinkedIn domain.

      Anyway, LinkedIn isn't Facebook :)

      And I must say I'm a bit miffeled about your "without using JavaScript" addition. Almost as if you have zero idea about how an IMG tag works ...

      If you look around you'll see that Facebook primarily tracks people through their stupid social media plugins for websites, which rely on JavaScript. They also do some tracking via ads which, again, depend on JavaScript.

      Is it possible to track people without JavaScript? Yes, absolutely. I just haven't seen any examples of Facebook doing so. And since the previous dingus was claiming they don't use JavaScript, I asked him for an example of them using something else. Still waiting on that.

    37. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The facebook app in IoS tracks everything, regardless of its disabled status.

    38. Re: Facebook creeps me out by infolation · · Score: 1

      Users can be tracked without Cookies, Javascript, LocalStorage, SessionStorage, GlobalStorage, Flash, Java, IP or browser/font profiling etc.

      ETag tracking doesn't need any of these methods.

    39. Re: Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Facebook uses ETag and browser fingerprinting (they probably have additional). They are an advertising company so they have entire divisions dedicated to this.

    40. Re:Facebook creeps me out by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I own and operate a small business. I occasionally run my business name through google just to see what turns up about it.

      Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my business has a facebook page! According to facebook's help pages, I believe that the facebook page was automatically created when people "check in" (whatever that means).

      I can apparently claim that page if I send facebook some documentation to prove that I own my business. But I can't delete it.

      I have zero intention of claiming that page and rewarding facebook for their slimy behaviour in setting it up behind my back, though. And why would I want to intentionally forward even more information to facebook to prove that I own my business?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    41. Re:Facebook creeps me out by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Er, it isn't just "their domains". Their trackers exist on most websites on the Internet. Did you know this very website has a tracker for Microsoft embedded in it? Who knows what the other trackers on this website are for.

    42. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random User Agent, Canvas Defender ?

    43. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. It's actually in the "noscript" section

      I was already wondering if you would notice it. :-)

      But it does not matter, as the script part directly above it does the same (and probably more), just using another domain. In other words: You're fucked either way.

      meaning the jackasses intentionally put it there to track people with scripts disabled.

      No. Those jackasses want to track you, period.

      If you have script enabled than they go that way, if you do not they use the spypixel as a fallback.

      Thanks, now I have a good reason to go and block the entire LinkedIn domain.

      Do yourself a favour, and take a look at a FF plugin like RequestPolicy. It will block any-and-all third-party resource requests by default, but can very easily (a few mouse clicks) be configured to whitelist certain requests (globally, or just for the current domain. Even just for the current session).

      Anyway, LinkedIn isn't Facebook :)

      You don't say ... :-p

      I think both are comparable in regard to intention. You are the product, not the customer. Never forget it.

      And by the way, while browsing thru my stash of on-line strips I found exactly what you wanted/demanded to see:

      http://www.questionablecontent...

      <img height="1" width="1" style="display:none"
      src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=560616780737475&ev=PageView&noscript=1" />

      If you look around you'll see that Facebook primarily tracks people through their stupid social media plugins for websites

      I suggest you look again. Although I've found a number of sites where FB stuff is crammed into an IFrame, I have also encountered as many which only sport the facebook "icon" - most always retrieved from their domain, and as such causing the same effect as the invisible pixel: just visiting the page will let FB know you where there.

      Is it possible to track people without JavaScript?

      Absolutily, and without a problem. Even if you do not accept cookies, the HTTP protocol has got enough crap on board to replace it - like a special, website-supplied(!) "timestamp", which your browser provides the next time you request the same resource. As that "timestamp" can be any value, it can easily be used as a replacement for (a value stored in) a cookie.

      And since the previous dingus was claiming they don't use JavaScript, I asked him for an example of them using something else

      And I think I provided it. Both as an explanation of how simple tracking actually can be, as well as, in this post, a life usage of it.

      And by the way: The only reason JS is prefered is that such a scripting language allows tracker websites to (try to) do gather/steal much more info about the user than just "X visited site Y". Fingerprinting, mouse tracking, form spying, etc.

    44. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of that is only Android. You can turn off the few things that FB has access to very easily in iOS.

      Sadly, some Android phones can't disable FB because it is a default app. If the user knows how to root the phone, then it can be disable.

    45. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Facebook uses ETag and browser fingerprinting (they probably have additional). They are an advertising company so they have entire divisions dedicated to this.

      Any useful browser fingerprinting definitely requires JavaScript, so using this as an example of how Facebook can track you WITHOUT JavaScript leads me to believe that you really have no clue what you're talking about.

      Etag tracking is really neat, but it's not much different than the old "embed an image and use it to set up a cookie" method. The only difference that it doesn't require cookies. So, again, since all of the Facebook tracking methods I've seen use JavaScript to load their elements, just throwing the word "etag" out there doesn't change anything.

      Anyway, the other dude who responded gave a much better example, and he had a point; some sites do code such tracking methods directly into their HTML rather than calling JavaScript. He provided an example of Slashdot doing it with LinkedIn trackers; while I've still yet to see an example of anyone doing it for Facebook, I can certainly admit that it's possible. So, to cut to the chase, my point would be that:

      1. Disabling JavaScript and only white listing selected sites will cut down on the vast majority of trackers out there, and

      2. If you want to block even more of them you can always install adblock or uBlock Origin. I checked after responding to him, and my uBlock was succefully stopping the LinkedIn tracking image which was embedded in Slashdot.

      Depending on your level of paranoia you can do a lot more than that, but even just one of the above two steps is enough to throw a wrench in their attempt to track you everywhere you go.

    46. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Windows, it has always been in
      C:\WINDOWS\System32\drivers\etc

      Ignorance is bliss

    47. Re: Facebook creeps me out by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Any site with the "facebook plugin" social media thing could be tracking you. The facebook logo image is loaded from facebook's domain.

      Considering how desperately they want to track people, I would assume any resource hosted on facebook's domain is going to track you.

      But hey, just get angry when someone disagrees with you and start name calling like a child. That works too.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    48. Re:Facebook creeps me out by edi_guy · · Score: 2

      I got stuck with the Facebook app on my Android phone as a courtesy of my service provider. Couldn't delete it and when I tried to disable it and nuke the data, it would of course start up the next time I powered on/off. And that 200 MB data file...wtf. I don't have a FB account but they sure do have an account on me.

      I ended up having to root my phone to get rid of it.

    49. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No. Those jackasses want to track you, period.

      If you have script enabled than they go that way, if you do not they use the spypixel as a fallback.

      Yeah, obviously; I meant that the noscript section was intentionally put there to get around script blocking.

      Do yourself a favour, and take a look at a FF plugin like RequestPolicy. It will block any-and-all third-party resource requests by default, but can very easily (a few mouse clicks) be configured to whitelist certain requests (globally, or just for the current domain. Even just for the current session).

      I actually checked after my reply to you and found that uBlock Origin was blocking the LinkedIn tracking for me anyway. But thank you, I will definitely check out RequestPolicy; it seems like a very useful tool.

      I suggest you look again. Although I've found a number of sites where FB stuff is crammed into an IFrame, I have also encountered as many which only sport the facebook "icon" - most always retrieved from their domain, and as such causing the same effect as the invisible pixel: just visiting the page will let FB know you where there.

      I checked out your example from "questionable content", and you're absolutely right. Even worse, while uBlock is stopping the tracking attempt from "facebook.net" - which wouldn't have loaded anyway due to scripting being disabled - it's letting the non-script connection to facebook.com sail right through. Ouch!

      I did, however say they "primarily" use javascript based methods, and I still think that's true. For every one website you show me which has a tracker embedded directly in the HTML I think I can show you a dozen where, with javascript disabled, Facebook loses all ability to track you. But you're obviously correct in pointing out that they do use other methods at times, and that if I want to completely block them on all the sites I visit it's not enough to just disable javascript. So, I stand corrected.

      Even if you do not accept cookies, the HTTP protocol has got enough crap on board to replace it - like a special, website-supplied(!) "timestamp", which your browser provides the next time you request the same resource.

      Yeah, that's not much different than etag tracking, you still have to get the browser to load your resource. Anyway, I was aware that all of this was possible, I just hadn't seen any example of any sites actually loading Facebook trackers without using javascript. Thank you for providing those, as well as for your suggestion about RequestPolicy. Your comment has been far more informative than most.

    50. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone looked into making an App that runs in the background and visits random websites continuously as a method to jack up the noise to signal ratio? Have to watch out for dodgy sites somehow, of course but it would be neat to see what kinds of ads you get served from day to day...

    51. Re:Facebook creeps me out by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Claim it and use the space for an anti-Facebook screed

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Facebook creeps me out by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      If I claim it then I have to provide documentation and verification to facebook, which I am unwilling to do.

      And then people who do use facebook would (legitimately) expect to be able to communicate with me through that page. Again, something that I am unwilling to do.

      So I figure it's best to just ignore it. I had and have nothing to do with facebook and if anyone asks me about that page (which nobody has so far) I'll just tell them exactly that. Not created by me, not monitored by me; if you want to contact me you know how to do it and it ain't through facebook.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    53. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      A small followup on this; I didn't have JavaScript disabled as a browser setting, rather I was using the NoScript browser extension, set to block all scripts by default.

      It turns out that this makes a difference. The "noscript" tag on Slashdot, and the other sites which you linked to, don't actually get processed unless scripting is disabled in the browser settings. So the LinkedIn and Facebook tracking events really were being blocked for me since neither the scripts nor the noscript element were being processed.

    54. Re: Facebook creeps me out by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Any site with the "facebook plugin" social media thing could be tracking you. The facebook logo image is loaded from facebook's domain.

      Thanks, Einstein. The point is that the Facebook plugin is almost always loaded with JavaScript, which is why you don't see their logo when JavaScript is disabled. The whole plugin goes away.

      But hey, just get angry when someone disagrees with you and start name calling like a child. That works too.

      Not angry, just frustrated that I seem to be speaking to children who keep missing the point.

    55. Re:Facebook creeps me out by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the tracker still goes back to their domains. Whether it's JavaScript posting data, or a transparent GIF with tracking data in the query parameters doesn't much matter.

      Slashdot could have a tracking object for ... IDK maybe Reddit. That object will be retrieved from, or post to, a reddit-owned service. That same tracking item might be on Indiegogo, or Tumblr, or Imgur, or SilentPCReview, or ... or ... Once placed, your browser acts like a browser, retrieves the items (including setting cookies if demanded) and will then provide the cookies back to the tracker next time. None of this is using Slashdot services other than the initial delivery.

      Blocking that domain stops it from working. You have to get all of them, but once it's done it will actually work, until the next time they rotate domains...

    56. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easily blocked by adblockers. Don't load anything from any adserver - facebook, doubleclick, google analytics or others. Looses the ads, looses the tracking, looses the thumbs-up buttons . . .

    57. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue it shouldn't even be available in the app stores. We only pretend it isn't spyware/malware.

      That puts in line with Google Chrome, and in fact almost all Google applications though, doesn't it?

      I think it would be problematic to remove everything that is that kind of spyware from the app stores, especially Google's.

    58. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      cue APK

    59. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And people wonder why I don't want to have anything to do with Facebook.

      I doubt people really care whether or not you're on Facebook.

    60. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, obviously; I meant that the noscript section was intentionally put there to get around script blocking.

      Nope, nothing of the kind.

      The only reason for that is so their logging does not show the same visit twice. A bit dumb decision actually (read on).

      ... I was using the NoScript browser extension, set to block all scripts by default.
      It turns out that this makes a difference

      The lolz here is that the tracking websites have not (yet) picked up on that.

      Just removing the NOSCRIPT tags around the spypixel would give them a tracking result, regardless of if you have scripting disabled by a setting or by something like NoScript.

      And by the way, you can tell NoScript to allow or block the contents of a NOSCRIPT range (meaning that NoScript is usable, even if you have scripting disabled in the browser).

    61. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there browser plugins that send false information? That would be interesting.

      Get a list of domains and setup cron to request random ones from the list.

    62. Re: Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk to a lawyer first about this, but I wonder if you send fake information to prove who you are to them and shut it down if they would even know. They're not a government entity and you didn't have a contract with them when they started doing this. If everyone started doing this, it would reverse this policy quickly as there would be no way they could reverify everything.

    63. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That part they can do for their own internal use by correlating any public data.

      They have his location data, his Google Chat data (hangouts?), and other stuff. ... what? Hold on, something is wrong here. People require some measure of privacy, and the capacity to peer into private conversations on other platforms is simply unacceptable.

      We'll have to start a regulatory push to provide capacity for non-breakable end-to-end encryption in text messaging and private messenger applications, perhaps as a legally-recognized implication of using the words "secure", "private", or "privacy" to describe conversations over these mediums. So "Facebook Messenger" can tell Facebook everything you say, in plain text, on their servers, as long as it's not described by Facebook as "Secure" or "Private"; whereas a messenger such as WhatsApp using double-ratchet end-to-end can claim your conversations are "Private", so long as the application is designed with the good-faith intent (meaning yes, you have to use se
      cure protocols and encryption algorithms) to ensure no entity besides the communicating parties can read the messages.

      The Facebook Employee new hire agreement makes you sign a clause that states "Privacy is not in use". Never have I seen a more troubling test of ones integrity, right out of the gate. What's the big paycheck worth to you?

    64. Re:Facebook creeps me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there's something I'm missing regarding some other feature I am not aware of, this is not accurate. The photos that facebook asks if you want to add at the top of your feed are locally displayed in a module within the app, but are not uploaded to Facebook's servers unless you select for them to be.

  4. Self-fixing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Facebook app will speed the battery discharge and eventually drain it and shut off the phone. Problem solved.

  5. Facebook owns their employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Selling your soul to the company store.

    You get just what you deserve.

  6. Wait, what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why didn't the person who was leaking just leave his phone at home, then Facebook would have seen the journalist in one place and the leaker in another and not been concerned. Either turning off the phone is enough to disable the tracking, in which case either party can do it because the thing they're worried about is being seen together, or it isn't in which case why ask the reporter to do it?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Facebook might require all employees to be constantly logged into Facebook, else they assume the worst.

    2. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You phone unnaturally immobile and not in use at the same time reporter is meeting someone, or both phones off at same time would provide indirect clues.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I use the 3rd party Metal app on Android for accessing Facebook. There's generally no way to prevent any app from accessing your location on Android, but Metal is intended to let you use Facebook without them having more information than they're entitled to.
      iOS has stronger privacy safeguards. Google should learn from Apple about how to do that better.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did I already mention that cult-like behaviour?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Wait, what? by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's generally no way to prevent any app from accessing your location on Android

      Of course there is. Install LineageOS, which comes with privacy guard. Or, if you want to keep your current ROM, install the XPosed framework. XPosed with XPrivacy is especially great because you can feed apps fake location data. Back when i still had Facebook they thought I was in the middle of the pacific ocean one day, and in the Arctic the next.

    6. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's generally no way to prevent any app from accessing your location on Android

      Turn ... off ... location ... services.

      Or, you know, just uninstall Facebook and delete your account.

    7. Re: Wait, what? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Every single OS should be able to let the user lie to apps, It should be a default function of all pocket computers.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LineageOS uses the Android Open Soure Code, but don't confuse it with the official Android. They are not 1 in the same and Lineage works on a relative handful of devices. If only Lineage ran Google's Android project, and Lineage came pre-installed on all new Android devices, they'd be far better off on the privacy front.
      Those "hide my address" apps work until Android or an app maker decide they want your real location. Google didn't even bother to tell anyone that apps could get around Android 7's app-specific privacy settings. This all speaks to Google's main motivation for even creating Android. They're in the business of monetizing end-user data, not selling devices and services like Apple.

    9. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't the person who was leaking just leave his phone at home, then Facebook would have seen the journalist in one place and the leaker in another and not been concerned.

      From the summary:

      Then she told him that she had their messages on Gchat, which Fearnow had assumed weren't accessible to Facebook. He was fired.

      Phone locations might have been one clue, but clearly Facebook was digging through Google chat messages. Maybe this is part of the reason why that awful app requires pretty much full access to the entire phone?

    10. Re: Wait, what? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Lineage has run on every device I have wanted it on, including 5 different phones and 3 different tablets. It's true that it's not available for every device but that has no been an issue for me.

      XPosed should run on every device out there, so if Lineage isn't available for your phone then give XPosed a shot. You still have to be able to root your device, though, which may be a show stopper for many people.

      If you care about privacy my suggestion would be to select your device based on it's ability to implement one or both of these solutions. If you're just basing your purchase decision on what's cheap or what looks pretty, you get what you get.

    11. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whenever I go to meet reporters, I first tie my phone to my cat, and a laser pointer to the ceiling fan. Don't worry, I have a sturdy case for my phone. The phone is set to take pictures at random intervals and upload the good ones (there's an app for that). This mimics my normal behavior closely enough to belay any suspicion.

    12. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might think that. The reality is that they do not.

    13. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this talk about the app...obviously the app has permissions that would allow it to access more than just what you're doing with it...but did anyone stop to wonder if it was a company phone? If so, he has no right to privacy on it, regardless of the installed apps.

    14. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pokemon GO that shit and duct tape it to your ceiling fan.

    15. Re: Wait, what? by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      There are actually a few phones that flat-out can't be rooted. They tend to be either obscure or marketed as security-hardened, though.

    16. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Circumstantial at best. Not enough to fire you.

    17. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XPosed would be nice. Too bad it has never run on any of the Nexus devices I've owned, including the Nexus 6P.

    18. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You phone unnaturally immobile and not in use at the same time reporter is meeting someone, ...

      You mean I can't be at home while the reporter is meeting someone? What you said sounds like FB sent someone out to peep on you at home.

    19. Re:Wait, what? by edi_guy · · Score: 1

      Your asking someone who is probably in their 20's to go outside without a cellphone?!! You might as well ask them to leave their right arm at home. What are they supposed to look at while crossing the street or riding their bike?

    20. Re: Wait, what? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      any reason, or no reason.

    21. Re:Wait, what? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A brand might have a part of "working" for them that demands a cell phone is always "on".

      Re "would have seen the journalist in one place and the leaker in another and not been concerned. "
      What governments do to find a leaker is see who they spend time with. Who was sitting next to a person been tracked for 10 mins, 1 hour.
      The other person is detected spending time with "media".
      Its not been "seen together" its the result of location and time been correlated to find everyone who was with the any worker.
      The tracking of all known "media" in the area.
      Know the location of all workers as part of their job.
      Are workers spending time with known media?
      Who are workers spending time with?
      Is that unknown person with a cell phone "media" at the same location, over time? Yes? What workers did they spend time with?
      Tracking works from the worker to cover anyone they spend time with.
      The NSA had a system called FIRSTFRUITS that would find journalists using terms and project names for the first time and then work back to who they had been talking to.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. The wrong kind of comforting by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This makes me kind of smile, apparently it's not just the Facebook users that suffer a total loss of privacy but also their own employees.

    I have little sympathy for FB users that get burned but it's even less for those evil enough to work there.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not just the Facebook users that suffer a total loss of privacy but also their own employees.

      I have little sympathy for FB users that get burned but it's even less for those evil enough to work there.

      This is why I have no problem cursing out a phone rep for a company that's doing something shitty. If they treat their customers awful, chances are the same for their employees. If someone is working there and pushing the shit downhill then they deserve every expletive and more.

    2. Re:The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killer robots will kill employees too.

      This makes me happy!

      Captcha: adapted

    3. Re:The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kind of an asshole. You'd probably make a great Facebook employee.

    4. Re:The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have sympathy for the average user because they simply don't understand the shady things going on AT ALL. I have no sympathy for employees that know this crap is going on and then get burned by it.

    5. Re: The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a real piece of shit there

    6. Re:The wrong kind of comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kind of an idiot, the only difference between you and this man is that they had a reason to watch him. You're not only next, you're in that same pool and you're wasting your energy feeling good about somebody getting ganked by the system you're swimming in.

  8. facebook can see gchat? by Cederic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

    Yeah, I'm assuming Google are innocent (on this occasion).

    1. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

      Damn good question.

      Let's stop gleaming over every other bullshit piece of information in this story until we have a clear answer for this.

    2. Re:facebook can see gchat? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Yeah, there’s an unexplored story there too...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

      Yeah, I'm assuming Google are innocent (on this occasion).

      He was fired. "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it," she instructed him.

      Sure sounds like it was their laptop.

    4. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google account on work keychain would be my guess.

    5. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope it was a corporate device, potentially signaled by the "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it" line. Otherwise that would be a shocking level of collusion.

    6. Re:facebook can see gchat? by TFlan91 · · Score: 0

      "I hope it was a corporate device, potentially signaled by the "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it" line."

      I hope it was too, otherwise the tech co's own us more than we should be thinking.

      Which means this employee/contractor/w.e was smart enough to disable the phone location tracking, but not smart enough to not use a company device? What?

    7. Re:facebook can see gchat? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I hope it was a corporate device, potentially signaled by the "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it" line. Otherwise that would be a shocking level of collusion.

      Uh, if the level of collusion is that high, the scary part is realizing the device owner no longer matters.

    8. Re: facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing a mix of key-logging, automated screen capturing, and bluffing...

    9. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      If my reading of the summary is correct, it was a different person who asked a reporter to turn off their phone from the guy who was told to shut his laptop.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:facebook can see gchat? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it"

      Sounds like a line from Manna.

      Anyway, even if the messages were sent from a corporate device, are employers in the US allowed to read those? Here in Europe, many countries uphold the right to privacy even on corporate devices. An employer may monitor traffic to allow them to enforce company IT policies, but no further. They can check if you are sending or receiving emails, and they may have an automatic system scan them for virii, but they are absolutely forbidden to have any corporate humanoid peruse the content of those emails. Neither are they allowed to follow your every move, even in the workplace.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:facebook can see gchat? by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Which means this employee/contractor/w.e was smart enough to disable the phone location tracking, but not smart enough to not use a company device? What?

      The article talks about one employee who (from the sound of things) used a corporate laptop. It talks about another different employee who asked the reporter to switch off the reporter's phone. I think you're conflating the two?

    12. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

      It was a corporate laptop.

      Only a facebook owned and provisioned device would have access to the things he was taking screenshots of.
      Their devices are no doubt setup to perform CA-cert MitM recording, as well as MitM all other traffic as well. They would have the chat logs that way.

      I would like to think that facebook has their devices locked down to the point it either wouldn't have been possible to copy the screenshots off of it to another device for sending, but I can't say if that is true or not.

      To be honest the leaker was being a bit naive at best and stupid at worst, only in what way is in question.

      If facebooks laptops are restricted such that he wouldn't be able to copy files off of it without a record/snapshot, then he was stupid for assuming the screenshots wouldn't be recorded and not actually be deleted when he issued the delete command, but would be retained as a shadow copy until the next backup cycle ran.

      If the devices don't prevent copying, the leaker is still at best naive to assume everything wasn't being recorded and routed through the facebook network, and at worst stupid for not at least copying the files off to another device that is doing the sending/chatting.

      In the second case I'd personally give the guy a break with the "stupid" label.
      Even copying the files off the company laptop and using Gchat from something personally owned, it's not like it would take much of a leap to match the screenshots made and recorded up against the news article images.
      This is facebook internal investigations after all, they don't need a level of evidence that a court of law would require in order to fire the guy.

    13. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

      Neither ... when you installed the FB app, you explicitly gave them permission to pretty much everything on your phone.

      They can read your contacts, your calls, your storage, your SMS history, change your network of bluetooth settings, access your camera and mic ... everything.

      And they also have web-bugs in countless pages so even if you don't have an account, unless you're blocking them, they still see where you go.

      The extent to which people fail to grasp this is mind boggling. You gave them permission to do it. Or, in the case of web-bugs, they've just said "well, your browser loaded from our stuff, so you agreed to it".

    14. Re:facebook can see gchat? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      So was he stupid enough to be using gchat on a corporate device or are Facebook guilty of hacking?

      Neither ... when you installed the FB app, you explicitly gave them permission to pretty much everything on your phone.

      They can read your contacts, your calls, your storage, your SMS history, change your network of bluetooth settings, access your camera and mic ... everything.

      And they also have web-bugs in countless pages so even if you don't have an account, unless you're blocking them, they still see where you go.

      The extent to which people fail to grasp this is mind boggling. You gave them permission to do it. Or, in the case of web-bugs, they've just said "well, your browser loaded from our stuff, so you agreed to it".

      If I worked for Facebook, there is no way I would either:

      • Have a personal Facebook account, or
      • Carry out any personal communications on a company-owned device.

      Doing otherwise is just creating a time bomb and handing Facebook the timer.

    15. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and don't re-open it" -- what are you they going to do, fire him? Open that computer up and clean out your personal files and logs.

    16. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! In Finland, I have no issues using company device to surf or communicate as I wish. If company started presenting "evidence" that was obtained by monitoring my communications, then the company representatives in question (the ones doing the monitoring) would face jailtime.

    17. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Buahahahahaha, this is the US we are talking about. There are no privacy protections. If a company employs you, they basically own you. They can look at absolutely anything they want if you're on a corporate-owned device. You are basically locked into a company because if you leave somewhere you no longer have health insurance and your company may blacklist you so you can't find a job elsewhere. Only laws that benefit corporations are ever passed as the governmental officials are owned by the corporations. Companies can do anything they want, down to regulating what activities you do when not at work or dictating when you piss. They can fire you at any time for almost any reason. The only exception is for certain protected classes (rage, gender, religion, etc.) but if they are firing someone for being black they just say "they aren't a team player" or "didn't align with our corporate culture" - it doesn't really matter as long as you don't mention their protected class and cite something sufficiently nebulous. The only real protected class is the US is profit.

      --

      Enigma

    18. Re:facebook can see gchat? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the corporate laptop included trusted root certificates to allow them to MITM TLS connections. It's common practice in order to perform traffic scanning.

    19. Re:facebook can see gchat? by ragahast · · Score: 1

      collusion

      Or Facebook App just reads your gchat data directly.

      Maybe not that crazy since most phones have Facebook as a system app and they've already been outed for using the microphone to bug people for ad targeting.

      --
      .:Semper Absurda:.
    20. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The only exception is for certain protected classes (rage, gender, religion, etc.)

      I'm really really angry. I should be in a protected class.

    21. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      criminal charges.

    22. Re:facebook can see gchat? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Being a system app doesn't grant you access to read the data from other apps. System apps are allowed to be granted certain permissions not available to regular apps, but "read all data on the device" isn't one of them. To do that you'd need to have rooted the device.

    23. Re:facebook can see gchat? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      LOL, probably a little Freudian slip there, I had a little rage going on when posting that screed.

      --

      Enigma

  9. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    But leftist delusion? Long, strong, and full of Muslim dong!

  10. Gchat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's a Gchat?? Did Google create another messenger (after what feels like 200 failed ones)...? And in any case, how does Facebook have access to it?!

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

      It appears to be the predecessor of Hangouts.

  11. Or Signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which has encrypted voice and video chat.

    1. Re: Or Signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a Tox client that has actual P2P encrypted text, audio, voice, and file sharing. There's a server to help connect devices for communication. Once the handoff is made, it stays p2p with no server to keep records, only what you decide to on your device. Creating a "profile" is almost the same as setting up an OpenVPN, so there's no actual signup or phone number required. Or, they could just use appear.in anonymously (no signup) that works over a web browser.

    2. Re:Or Signal by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      And ads. Oh and its owned by Microsoft

      --
      Good-bye
  12. sounds like that was for show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would the reporters phone show the 2 of them together? Why didn't he just leave his phone at home so they would appear separate?

  13. Turn "off" your phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you can't take the battery out, how do you know it's off?

    Whatever, like the other posters said above. If you work for Facebook, you ARE Facebook. I don't care if you're the janitor. You don't have to quit or anything. Just accept and embrace the evil that you do when you enable the enemy.

    1. Re:Turn "off" your phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take the SIM card out.

    2. Re:Turn "off" your phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use a Faraday cage.

    3. Re:Turn "off" your phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't take your battery out of an electric vehicle, how do you know it's off? What about an electric ship?

  14. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    what are you complaining about? everyone gets a trophy.

  15. Block as much as possible by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't need you to have an account with them in order to track you.

    Which is why I make heavy use of various ad blockers and privacy guarding software to prevent as much of that as possible. I'm well aware they try to track me but I try to not make it easy for them. For example on my current browser I have Privacy Badger, Ublock, and Adblock Plus as well as some stuff to block flash. I'll use every tool I can find to give them the figurative (and literal) middle finger.

    1. Re:Block as much as possible by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That will help. I would recommend Ghostery as well. This very website has at least 8 active trackers.

    2. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A few years ago Ghostery got bought out and changed their policies to "block all but our partner trackers"...they're useless now.

    3. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ||facebook.com
      ||facebook.net
      ||fbcdn.com
      ||fbcdn.net

      Rules you should just get in the habit of adding to your adblocker as soon as you perform a new install.

    4. Re:Block as much as possible by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I used to use Ghostery until it slowed things down to a crawl. uBlock seems to work just as well if not better.

    5. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about your canvas fingerprint? You need a plugin for that too.

    6. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Props to you for valuing your privacy. However, many of your friends, family, co-workers, etc, likely use Facebook, and in doing so may reveal much about you. It's a difficult problem to work-around, since many don't see anything wrong with taking and sharing pictures of others (ie. family at a gathering, friends at a party, etc).

      Furthermore, many phones and various internet of things that may be in your vicinity are likely running dodgy apps eavesdropping on conversations. And then there are smart-speakers, that so many willingly buy, which can potentially be listening in all the time.

      Not sure how this is going to play out. Maybe society will be more tolerant of other people's personal activities. Or conversely, maybe there will be a backlash by the public at some point. Or maybe the population, as a whole, will be very compliant and scared to do anything that could potentially offend others - this seems to be where things are heading for the moment. Remain hopeful there will be a re-balance of privacy and technology soon to avoid a dystopia in which one can't even think freely.

      Rambling on. Good luck with your privacy measures.

    7. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ghostery isn't trustworthy. But uMatrix would be a good addition.

    8. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This very website has at least 8 active trackers.

      Actually, it's a lot more than that. This web page installed 46 tracking cookies in my browser (with blocking disabled, of course).

    9. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canvas defender + Random User Agent?

    10. Re:Block as much as possible by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      I use cookie autodelete too. Tracking isn't confined to ads.

    11. Re:Block as much as possible by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Using plugins is a good idea, but I find killing the traffic further upstream is more effective.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    12. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also consider using a canvas blocker, since they use that method to identify and track unique browsers as well. I used to use Adblock Plus and Privacy Badger only, and they were still able to identify me.

    13. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little do you know your unique combination of blockers is actually a data point used to track you

    14. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Replace uBlock and Adblock with uBlock Origin. There is no point running two ad blockers and uBlock Origin is the original author of uBlock.

      Also while you are at it put on uMatrix made by the same author. Ditch that other junk like ghostery, Adblock/Adblock plus, NoScript and whatever people seem to be stuck on like its 2009.

    15. Re:Block as much as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, using those kinds of add-ons makes your browser fingerprint even more unique.

    16. Re:Block as much as possible by johnsie · · Score: 1

      While these plugins will block some tracking cookies/scripts they won't prevent FB from building a shadow profile. Facebook has biometric recognition in it's photo system, and probably videos. This means they can build a profile on you based on pic other people take. Time, location, who with etc.

  16. Not surprising by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    99% of the time, the more powerful an entity becomes, the more it will exert it's power to keep (and usually increase) said power. It doesn't matter if that entity is a company, a government, or an individual.

  17. Re:Things that will not survive 2018 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Trump wishes, but he won't get out this easily!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. FEARBOOK by Zorro · · Score: 1

    NT

  19. Ghostery by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I would recommend Ghostery as well.

    I tried it but it caused more problems than it solved. Not sure what the flaw was but it made things work VERY slowly when they worked at all. Maybe they've fixed the issues since I tried it last. I liked what it did but it just didn't work very well for me.

  20. He should have followed his own advice by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and shut his own phone down.

    It's good that Facebook lost over 2 million 17-25 year olds last year and will lose even more this year.

    It's becoming the GrannyBook, the over 55 years are joining mostly, which is poison for the young generation.

    1. Re:He should have followed his own advice by magarity · · Score: 1

      ...and shut his own phone down.

      It's good that Facebook lost over 2 million 17-25 year olds last year and will lose even more this year.

      I thought most insidious part of the problem is that they don't lose anyone, even if one naively thinks one's account is "deleted", The best one can hope for is to never have signed up in the first place.

    2. Re:He should have followed his own advice by slew · · Score: 1

      ...and shut his own phone down.

      It's good that Facebook lost over 2 million 17-25 year olds last year and will lose even more this year.

      I thought most insidious part of the problem is that they don't lose anyone, even if one naively thinks one's account is "deleted", The best one can hope for is to never have signed up in the first place.

      Reminds me of: I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further. -- Darth Vader

    3. Re: He should have followed his own advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook will have to follow GPDR or get kicked out of Europe...

    4. Re:He should have followed his own advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already warned my 17 year old son that we're all coming after Snapchat next, having driven his generation off of Facebook.

    5. Re:He should have followed his own advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good that Facebook lost over 2 million 17-25 year olds last year and will lose even more this year.

      Except they've all changed over to a different social media company, owned by a different multi-billion dollar multi-national ... which is still fucking tracking them.

      There is no win here unless people just stop using social media entirely.

    6. Re:He should have followed his own advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't un-send the signal. But you can induce enough noise in that signal that it becomes useless.

      You can't delete your Facebook account. But you can make the data in it so inconsistent, and downright conflicting, that it becomes statistically useless.

      Being an exquisite work of fiction in a data set assumed to be factual makes you non-existent. You'll be too far outside of every target demographic for anyone to care about marketing to you. And when your "true self" accidentally shows up, no one will identify you with the fictional identity, and as a bonus, if they do somehow identify you with your fake self, they won't know whether to believe you or to continue believing your fake identity. This is what's known as "winning" and "beating Facebook while flipping them the bird".

  21. Traffic analysis by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook probably will have some way to see you are using a covert app, and probably be able to see other people who are using the app at the same time. Likewise google, may verywell be the DNS that originates this. And finally how can you be sure that Signal or Skype doesn't share it's transaction analysis with its "partners and customers" as the EULA you didn't read might say. And perhaps the person you are talking to is also taking notes in google docs, etc..

    De-anominization isn't that hard. More to the point, you can't really know ahead of time if is. And finally, your early contacts with a reporter probably don't happen via covert channels. Few people plan ahead like Snowden.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Traffic analysis by umghhh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was one of the Bourne movies where they found a leaker because he was the only one that fit the profile out of a (IIRC) 3 persons that switched off the phone at given time. Things went ahead and now if some effort is put into it FB and google may be in a possession of data on most of movement (physical and virtual) of most of humans in the west. I know from a friend that his criminal acquaintances switch off their phones when they meet to discuss next job - imagine this: 10 people meeting in a coffee bar switching phones simultaneously. Is that difficult to spot? Not really. Difficult part is to get over the phone - person relationship but that is not a big deal if you have additional info pre-selecting the target group. The idea that we have privacy or any sorts is these days based on our belief that people and corps hold on to not written rules of behaviour. If the rules were written and enforced this would be no guarantee but they are mostly not written and I guess as soon as you have FB app on your phone you agreed the their rules possibly suspending general ones (if any existed). It is not doom and gloom. It is just reality of 21st century.

    2. Re:Traffic analysis by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Turn your phone off before you leave home.

    3. Re:Traffic analysis by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Leaving smartphone at home sounds like an idea, though..
      check movement sensors of smartphone
      check gps data of car
      check financial transactions of credit cards
      check laptop activity
      and that's only for that person. There's all the public monitoring of people movements.

    4. Re:Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're going to leave your smart phone in this hotel room that has a prerecorded interview about how good facebook is playing. Then meet me on the other side of town.

    5. Re:Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine this: 10 people meeting in a coffee bar switching phones simultaneously. Is that difficult to spot?

      Leave phone at home, so the meeting didn't even happen.

    6. Re:Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know plans ahead of time, the best course is to leave your phone turned on, but at your normal location, then it looks like you never traveled to your clandestine meeting.

    7. Re:Traffic analysis by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      Do you suppose people will be paying Uber guys to drive around with their phone all day?

    8. Re:Traffic analysis by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I suspect you could probably run a specialized service for it--a virtual tour, where you take a certain number (quota decided on what would look 'right' for a bus to avoid being given away by density) of phones on a nice drunkard's walk tour of the area with maybe a bit of effort to hit the tourist spots. You'd have to keep the identities of the 'tour leaders' secret, of course, but...

    9. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much better to just leave the phone at home because you can't be sure it is really off.

    10. Re:Traffic analysis by harl · · Score: 1

      Short answer: pay cash, use public transit/ a car without gps, don't bring a laptop. Honest answer: If someone who can pull your credit card history and data from your vehicle is targeting you there's nothing that can be done to stop it except to walk out on literally everything and start a new life with a new identity.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    11. Re:Traffic analysis by nonBORG · · Score: 1

      Uber Uber eats Uber alibi

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    12. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not possible!

    13. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why switch off the phone? Just don't bring it to the meeting. Give it someone else to carry around that day.

    14. Re: Traffic analysis by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      That's already a thing, just for Uber executives.

    15. Re: Traffic analysis by schure · · Score: 1

      Or carry with you a fridge with the phone inside. Portable Snowden technique.

    16. Re: Traffic analysis by schure · · Score: 1

      And new language patterns.

    17. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have the problem of 100 people being in a room without a phone. In about 10 years AI will take note of this and then use facial recognition to find out who they are and to surveil them more thoroughly.

    18. Re: Traffic analysis by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Plus this adds plausible deniability. You can just say you put the phone on the charger and forgot it when you left the house.

    19. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to have a covert meeting of ten people is for all of them to arrange for a friend to drop by without his/her phone (preferably left on at home) and have that person carry your phone as they go about their day while you go to your meeting. Afterwards, you meet them somewhere and take your phone back.

    20. Re:Traffic analysis by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      CCTV facial recognition.

    21. Re: Traffic analysis by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Plus this adds plausible deniability.

      Except there's no court of law here. If they feel like, Facebook can terminate your employment because they don't like your haircut.

    22. Re:Traffic analysis by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes police are all over over phones been turned off together at the same time for a while and then on again later.
      It makes new tracking of the "guests" that are not known so easy after that )
      Time and location is just part of police work as a live mic that can be turned on.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    23. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm always cycling between old and new verbal ticks...ya bastids.

    24. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct that companies can terminate employees for any reason, but the company has to come up with a legal claim for terminating the employee. If they do not make up a legal claim for the termination, the employee could file and win a lawsuit against the company for illegal employment termination and/or regulators, like the US Department of Labor, may start an investigation of the company. These investigations create negative press for the company. Additionally, if the investigations find any illegal practices, the company may end up paying fines, being closely scrutinised for the foreseeable future, be forced to close, etc. For these reasons companies go out of their way to make an employee's termination look legal even though the employee is actually being terminated for illegal reasons.

      For example, a company has an employee with a disability, so the employee is on intermittent FMLA (the employee can randomly take days off whenever they need to for their disability). If the employee takes off so many days that it negatively impacts the company (e. g. the employee is costing the company more money than they are making the company) the company will probably want to terminate the employee. Unfortunately, for the company FMLA provides many protections to the employee, making it very difficult to to terminate an employee. One thing the company can do is to make the employee's work look subpar (give the employee confusing directions, give them almost impossible deadlines, etc.). With enough evidence of subpar work the company can terminate the employee legally.

      The ultimate point I am making is that you are correct that a company can terminate an employee for any reason but the company has to make it appear to be for legal reasons. So, it is not that easy to terminate an employee because you do not like their haircut. The company has to put a lot of work into making it look like a legitimate termination; so that, the employee or regulators cannot come along later and win a lawsuit against the company for illegal employment termination procedures.

    25. Re: Traffic analysis by FuzzyDaddy2 · · Score: 1

      Public transit requires some care. Where I love you need a card with a chip to get on and off the subway. Getting a new card every trip would be expensive, and reusing the same card you ties a bunch of trips together making it easier to correlate against you. And forget it if you buy it with a credit card.

    26. Re: Traffic analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they're willing to be accomplices in whatever you're doing.

    27. Re: Traffic analysis by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Not really a problem. For subway cards that track you and toll paying gadgets like EasyPass there is a simple enough workaround. Build up a big enough pool of acquaintances and swap 'em every now and again. No longer tied to you and looks mighty confusing to anyone tracking them.

      Used to do the same thing with my supermarket 'loyalty' card. Someone in line forgets theirs I'd say "Just use mine". Throw more grit in the wheels of corporate data-basing.

    28. Re: Traffic analysis by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's also probably better if the phone is still powered on and doing its thing sitting at home, as the phone going offline for a few hours could look suspicious. Maybe you could claim the battery died, but that's something they could plausibly be tracking.

      If you wanted to have a phone with you in case of an emergency or something I'd just get a second burner phone, and don't actually turn it on and use it unless you absolutely need it.

    29. Re: Traffic analysis by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You could also use some other excuse for your phone going offline, like:

      1. Go to movie theater and buy ticket. Be sure to use a credit card so they'll see you bought a ticket
      2. Go into movie and turn off phone
      3. Leave the theater
      4. You now have a couple of hours to go to a covert meeting or whatever
      5. Go back to the theater when the movie is supposed to end
      6. Power phone back on right outside of theater
      7. ????
      8. Profit!

      One issue is that most people probably don't actually power off their phone for the movies but rather just put it on silent, but it might be plausible enough to work.

  22. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could always refer to them as "punchables" or "slapsicles", if that makes you feel better.

  23. Why is it opt-out anyway?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I am told time and time again (presumably until it is true), "most people" are complete and utter retarda, who consider tying shoes to be "too complicated" (and nowadays "offensive" too)!
    That is why.

    But ...
    1. why is it not opt-in anyway? (Ok, we obviously know why.) Security should always come in whitelists, not in blacklists!
    2. like the app is still gonna work when you turn any access off ⦠!

    1. Re: Why is it opt-out anyway?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know apple has bypass everything and god grants. Additionally, the moment you regrant it would just upload its backlog.

  24. Is it just me... by mrlinux11 · · Score: 1

    Lately it seems like it is acceptable to leak company/government secrets is not considered doing something wrong.

    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some people, including myself, believe that it is not only morally justifiable, but morally imperative, to leak evidence of wrongdoing, particularly at massive scale.

    2. Re:Is it just me... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It's just you. Whistle-blowing isn't "leaking".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good to do nothing.

    4. Re:Is it just me... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Lately it seems like it is acceptable to leak company/government secrets is not considered doing something wrong."

      It's you.
      I was always acceptable to leak 'secrets' of corrupt and criminal companies or government.

      They just became more corrupt and criminal lately.

    5. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If said company/government is doing something bad then I is a very good thing that people on the inside make it known.

      What is wrong with you. Do you have no moral judgement of your own.

    6. Re:Is it just me... by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      That's why evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  25. Important information in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the top Silicon Valley companies have built this false persona about being human rights activists, etc. They hire certain groups of people and provide them with dream-like working conditions.

    However, they hire loads of consultants to do the real work, treat them very poorly, and go out of their way to demean them all the time.

    For the locals, this needs to be exposed. But in terms of fighting H1B abuses, the trump's DOL should increase inspections to these secondary sites. That's where they are really gonna hit the mother lodes.

  26. Not to mention Ad malware by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    I keep finding some as malware like Spigot or Conduit has wormed itself into my broswers. The way that crap works is it's capturing and editing all your transmissions and receptions to analyse content, inject ads, and to track correlations across sites. So even if you think you are clean you may not be and even if you are using your personal computing devices they very well can correlate you back to your work devices just by the websites you visit.

    I really really hate these adware companies. They are like computer herpes that can't be gotten rid of.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Not to mention Ad malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really really hate these adware companies. They are like computer herpes that can't be gotten rid of.

      Use a live distro. HD-installed software is for losers [unless your machine is air-gapped),

    2. Re:Not to mention Ad malware by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      PXE boot is where it's at.

    3. Re: Not to mention Ad malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook MUST BE shut down !!! It's an emergency !!

  27. Never installed the app by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Of course they are, and whether you realise or not, you gave them permission when you installed the app ... because that thing wants access to pretty much EVERYTHING.

    Except I've never installed their app on any phone I've ever owned. Never will in the future either. So I just need to block them through the browser which is enough of a challenge as it is.

    1. Re:Never installed the app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your spouse use Facebook? Do you share your calendar with your spouse? Based on that and the spouses contact list they can know quite a bit about you without ever touching your device.

  28. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically you're saying everyone who uses leftist as derogatory is a stupid c***. Have you asked yourself how likely is this to be true?
    I would say inverse proportional to your wait time, and of course to you being a stalinist.

  29. P2P is the least anonymous by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    if you are P2P with no intermediary to tumble the connections then every router, gateway, backbone, and ISP knows exactly who is talking to who.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: P2P is the least anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it works. Google it.

    2. Re:P2P is the least anonymous by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      well, it knows your encrypted entry point.

  30. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the wives

  31. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically you're saying everyone who uses leftist as derogatory is a stupid c***.

    He might not be, but I will definitely say it. Anyone who uses "leftist" to describe someone who doesn't agree with their political ideology is a brainless partisan hack.

    ...and of course to you being a stalinist.

    Case in point.

  32. Continuing with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it," she instructed him.

    The next sentence is obviously: "An IP-Repoman has been sent to your location to repossess any and all propitiatory information accumulated in your brain. Please remain still to avoid side effects."

  33. even without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just bought a new ZTE phone from Cricket Wireless... I found out that every cricket phone comes preloaded with a Wifi Manager application that is supposed to transition you between wifi and cell data automatically. If you agree to the EULA, it collects data about your phone and wifi and location and moves you between open wifi and data networks. Well this sounded like a bad idea so I reset the phone and didn't accept the EULA this time.

    Turns out that the data collection happens whether or not you accept the EULA. GPS info if you leave it on, WIFI SSIDs, cell locations, IMEI, Phone ID, data traffic levels...

    The offending app was from smithmicro and could not be disabled. I ended up in debug mode on adb shell and was able to uninstall the package for current user (not something Joe schmoe's grandma will do).

    My point is, you may think that no one is watching so long as you remove FB or other apps, but your location data and patterns is more valuable than the $50 the company gets for selling you service.

    1. Re:even without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Cricket as well on their $30 plan (mostly because cell service isn't worth more than about $30/month to me). Anyway, I have a hard rule that I never buy a carrier sold or branded device. So for now, I'm using a Pixel 2.

    2. Re:even without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, another Android fanboi who cheaps out and buys the crappiest Android junk available and then whines when it spies on him. Real geeks use Apple. Fake geeks use spyware.

    3. Re:even without FB by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      Carriers track you regardless of apps, OS, or brand of phone. They have to or you would not be able to get a signal. To comply with E911 regulations they also need your precise location which they can retrieve by using aGPS or a rough triangulation from nearby towers. They have been doing this since 2002 before smartphones were even a blip and probably somewhere all of these logs exists in a database including details such as what other phones were near yours and how often. No carrier is going to discard such useful information.

  34. Android development by OYAHHH · · Score: 4, Informative

    While doing Android development i find it disturbing to say the least that while debugging my extremely basic app (think hello world) I see calls to Facebook and Amazon urls in my console logs.

    WTH is up with that, I'm just a novice?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:Android development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Check what libraries you're including. Nothing is free...

    2. Re:Android development by Vairon · · Score: 1

      Do you have any Facebook or Amazon applications installed on your phone?

    3. Re:Android development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any ads enabled? Facebook is spamming mobile ads hard right now.

  35. BIG BROTHER SEES YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He watches over us. He cares for us. Don't disobey, and you'll be alright!

    Captcha: expelled

  36. Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by najajomo · · Score: 1

    "Sonya Ahuja, the company's head of investigations .. told him that she had their messages on Gchat"

    Well, a big fucking DOH!
    --

    sig: I'll bet you're the kind of guy that hangs round Reddit fapping off over pictures of furries and yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin

    1. Re:Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Everyone assured me since Gchat was using SSL that no one could read the messages! What a joke.

    2. Re: Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No, everyone assured you no lurkers could sniff the connection and read it. They never said that they couldn't be read after they had been decrypted on the other end of the connection by someone with access to the system.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      The jury is still out on whether or not he was using a corporate laptop to do this, which would render SSL moot. I think tech leakers are learning what folks in repressive societies learned a while ago: Tor is your friend and have more than one phone.

    4. Re:Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor isn't magic pixie dust, and is easily blocked. (Tor even publishes a constantly-updated list of Tor exit nodes)

      My employer has its notebooks configured to only allow connections through the corporate VPN if you're not at an office. For fun, I've tried blocking connections to the VPN, to see of other traffic works; unsurprisingly, our admins did their job well.

      As soon as an admin forces all outgoing traffic to go through their monitored http(s) proxy, you've lost anonymity - at a minimum enough to get yourself fired for violating the company acceptable use policy.

      Even Squid allows monitoring of https, which shows that a proxy can foil https as well.

    5. Re:Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by KingRatMass · · Score: 1

      From the Wired article: "He took a screenshot on his personal laptop and sent the image to a friend named Michael Nuñez" later... "Fearnow took another screenshot, this time with his phone." So the jury is out on who the actual owner of "his" phone was, it appears there is no question regarding the laptop.

    6. Re:Google reads your Gchat msgs .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a corporate phone and I work for a large powerful overlord. However, if we're going to dime then out, you can be certain I would be using a landline or just meeting said person physically. Gchat and email are just ways of leaving trails that are insanely easy to follow.

  37. I don't agree to FB TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why is their shit pre-installed on my phone, and unable to be removed?

    [best captcha ever: nihilism]

  38. Leave the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who goes to sensitive meetings with a phone on their belongings on body?
    Leave the bloody thing home or if you a paranoid, give it to your wife, friend or whatever and let them go to nature, drive along or whatever.

  39. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Alypius · · Score: 1

    No amount of actual left-wing violence will ever stop the hand-wringing over potential right-wing violence.

  40. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a fine line between leaking something important, and leaking company struggles/information. If a person leaks stuff about management/etc discriminating/abusing/etc, that's one thing, but if you're leaking about how a company works, its methodologies, then that's another. With the latter I have no problems companies destroying leakers with all the power they have at their disposal. With the former, the employee should be able to sue the F out of any company that retaliates.

    You sign a contract, you honor it as long as it doesn't break any legal requirements. Too many kids these days think they have a right to say whatever the F they want about anything they want, whether or not they legally said they wouldn't.

  41. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  42. I resent having to police my friends by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, many of your friends, family, co-workers, etc, likely use Facebook, and in doing so may reveal much about you.

    I've had this exact argument with several people. Some of them couldn't wrap their head around the fact that I: A) didn't want to be on facebook, B) resented them posting information about me without my permission, and C) resented that I had to police them from doing so which is difficult since I don't want to use Facebook in the first place. Even if I liked what Facebook offers (I don't) I still don't trust the company to be responsible with information about me.

    I worry about my daughter because in her generation it's kind of hard to have a social life without using some social networking systems that often don't care at all about respecting privacy.

  43. Why was location turned on? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Location, Wifi, BlueTooth, NFC and all other wireless protocols should be off. unless you have a reason to have them on! You should also always use VPN / TOR proxies on your phone to mask it's location. This is a common problem and people need to wake up.

    1. Re:Why was location turned on? by shubus · · Score: 1

      Agree to above, but I had thought that today's smartphones still emit a traceable signal even when completely turned OFF. I assume this means the police can track the phone, but Facebook could not.

    2. Re:Why was location turned on? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      I'm not entire sure as to the details of something like that, but I think it would present a massive invasion of security / privacy and even then, you would be able to monitor it using any number of apps.

  44. Police work now vs then by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Police 1955: We went door to door. Talked to people. Found evidence and leads. Tracked down our criminal.

    Police 2017: The criminal doesn't have a Facebook account, nor smart phone, nor credit card.......we are totally baffled.

  45. Dim witted leaker got what he deserved by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    If that dimwit didn't even bother to get a cheap burner phone to make clandestine contact, ...

    Put your real phone in your girlfriend's purse, ask her to go shopping and then to a movie while you to meet this reporter.

    If such basic precautions are not taken, why blame facebook?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  46. Re: Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck, at least you guys are finally admitting the Russians are leftists like yourselves. I'll take that win.

  47. Re:Things that will not survive 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a great many assertions that he never really *wanted* to be President. Based on the current chaos engulfing the White House, it's entirely probable that is true....a well-run organization builds cohesive staff and works together, rather than constantly mopping up after the latest person cowboying out at some tangent to defined goals.

    I would bet that if he has an option to step down a la Sarah Palin (e.g., in a way that lets him off the hook and retain his properties and avoid exposure to charges) he'll do so in a heartbeat, leaving Pence as POTUS, which is really what the GOP backers wanted all along.

  48. High time for federal regulation by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aaaand this is just highlighting why Facebook needs to be federally regulated. They have every right to fire a leaking employee, but I am pretty sure that how they figured it out is a violation of a number of laws. Even if they have access to said information for advertising purposes through the employees Facebook page, there is a whole different set of regulations as to what an employer can do to spy on an employee, especially on their days off...

    It is high time the technocrats running Google, Facebook and Twitter go the hard slap down of federal regulation. They are just companies and they have been abusing their increasing power for far too long already.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  49. The only surprise here by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ... is that Facebook is that good and that thorough at tracking.

    Did anyone have any doubt that Facebook would be trying to monitor its employees to the same level they do their customers^Wraw material?

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  50. I'm curious what the motivation is. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why someone would risk leaking company secrets to the media. What do they have to gain?

    1. Re:I'm curious what the motivation is. by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Maybe they disagreed with their companies' actions and felt that they had a social obligation to speak truth and no other way to achieve said goals.
      Or maybe they're egotistical and enjoy wielding secret power... or any number of things.

      I'm personally going to hope the former. Lots of leakers speak truth because they believe that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"... usually to their personal detriment. Ellsberg, Snowden, Manning, just to name a few.

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    2. Re:I'm curious what the motivation is. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      If you disagree with your companies legal actions, work with the system to correct those actions. If that (and any "appeals") don't work, then LEAVE (or live with them). A paycheck isn't worth your good name, or your sleep. If you disagree with your companies illegal actions, LEAVE and let the proper authorities know. A paycheck isn't worth your time in jail. If you AGREE with your companies illegal actions....can't help you there. But the term "cannon fodder" does come to mind.

    3. Re:I'm curious what the motivation is. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      A lot of time it's just pictures or info on upcoming products though.

  51. Menarik sekali soal facebook ini.. by paketwisatalombok99 · · Score: 1

    I want to introduce tour package in Lombok.. Thanks.. Kita mulai dari Lombok! Jangan meninggalkan Indonesia tanpa mengunjungi salah satu tempat paling eksotis yang sering dikenal sebagai daerah yang memiliki keindahan wisata bahari yang elok di dunia ini. Lombok adalah kabupaten wisata utama di Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. Lombok sebagai pusat tujuan wisata di NTB dan memiliki sarana transportasi untuk terhubung dengan tujuan wisata lainnya seperti Bali, Sumbawa, Labuhan Bajo hingga Pulau Komodo. Selain landmark sejarah dan budaya yang terkenal seperti banyak masjid kuno, Pulau Lombok adalah tambang emas pemandangan alam mulai dari pantai, air terjun hingga gunung yang menakjubkan untuk pecinta petualangan yang mengingatkan Anda akan kehebatan Sang Pencipta.

  52. Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So google hands over conversations to any big media company that asks for it? Not acceptable.

  53. Re:The BEST jobs in the BEST cuntry! by johnsie · · Score: 1

    Who buys American in 2018?

  54. Re:Things that will not survive 2018 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The problem is, he was planning to launch a media platform riding on him losing an election that was rigged by liberals and socialists, and using the advertising machinery around his presidential candidateship to give it eyeballs. The whole thing would've hinged on the conspiracy of his enemies and the establishment against him becoming the president of "the people", with even the party that allegedly supports him eventually turning against him and working against his election.

    I think it's easy to see how this could have attracted a lot of interest from, well, pretty much everyone that feels that "the elites" run everything.

    The problem is that he actually won. He can't step down. The legend for the whole thing hangs on him being cheated out of office by a mafia-like system holding Washington in a stranglehold, with both parties being in on it.

    In other words, it was probably not the best thing for the US to have a president like Trump. But I am pretty sure it would have been devastating for the democratic culture and the trust in the political system if he had lost...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Wait by ZosX · · Score: 1

    Facebook can scrape your hangouts data? How?

  56. Can't wait for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When IBM started to lose the PC and mainframe businesses, it fell back on consulting and other high-end hardware.

    When Microsoft started to lose it's consumer business, it fell back on enterprise business.

    When Facebook loses whatever the hell it is you call it's primary line of business, what will it have to fall back on?

    People had been growing tired of the product, anyway. Now, with all these revelations of just how nasty the company is -- how it gives zero fucks about it's users -- I can't see this company surviving too much longer.

    I know it's easy to play chicken little, but I would seriously get out of FB shares. It may even be time to start shorting them.

  57. Re: company as cult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Apple, Like Google, Like Microsoft, Like....

  58. Facebook HR violated the CFAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sonya Ahuja should be facing felony charges with a 10 year minimum for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
    If Fearnow did not give Facebook his Google password, then Facebook hacked his account.
    That is a Felony.