Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Scraped Call, Text Message Data For Years From Android Phones (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: This past week, a New Zealand man was looking through the data Facebook had collected from him in an archive he had pulled down from the social networking site. While scanning the information Facebook had stored about his contacts, Dylan McKay discovered something distressing: Facebook also had about two years worth of phone call metadata from his Android phone, including names, phone numbers, and the length of each call made or received. This experience has been shared by a number of other Facebook users who spoke with Ars, as well as independently by us -- my own Facebook data archive, I found, contained call-log data for a certain Android device I used in 2015 and 2016, along with SMS and MMS message metadata. In response to an email inquiry about this data gathering by Ars, a Facebook spokesperson replied, "The most important part of apps and services that help you make connections is to make it easy to find the people you want to connect with. So, the first time you sign in on your phone to a messaging or social app, it's a widely used practice to begin by uploading your phone contacts." The spokesperson pointed out that contact uploading is optional and installation of the application explicitly requests permission to access contacts. And users can delete contact data from their profiles using a tool accessible via Web browser.

If you granted permission to read contacts during Facebook's installation on Android a few versions ago -- specifically before Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) -- that permission also granted Facebook access to call and message logs by default. The permission structure was changed in the Android API in version 16. But Android applications could bypass this change if they were written to earlier versions of the API, so Facebook API could continue to gain access to call and SMS data by specifying an earlier Android SDK version. Google deprecated version 4.0 of the Android API in October 2017 -- the point at which the latest call metadata in Facebook user's data was found. Apple iOS has never allowed silent access to call data.
You are able to have Facebook delete the data it collects from you, "but it's not clear if this deletes just contacts or if it also purges call and SMS metadata," reports Ars. Generally speaking, if you're concerned about privacy, you shouldn't share your contacts and call-log data with any mobile application.

158 comments

  1. no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've avoided facebook because I thought it was obvious this is exactly what they would be doing... sheesh... why are people so surprised this is exactly their business model they need this data about your social networks...

    DO delete facebook
    DO value your privacy

    1. Re:no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find Facebook's behavior to be weird and creepy, and that is why I have always avoided them. And the whole thing just seems completely useless and pointless.

      But, in all fairness, what actual harm has occurred as a result of Facebook's actions? Being weird and creepy isn't actually harmful. And anyone with half a brain already knows that invading your privacy is Facebook's business model and sole reason for existing.

    2. Re:no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CIA and FBI simply replaced Carnivore and Echelon with Facebook. Most likely funded its rise through In-Q-Tel in exchange for all of the data.

    3. Re:no great suprise by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Informative

      I find ANDROID'S behavior to be weird and creepy, and that is why I have always avoided them. And the whole thing just seems completely useless and pointless.

      Fixed that for you because really this is a Android problem, not Facebook, because Android is the one that allows developers to request all this and store it. Apple didn't have this problem. How many other apps are still stealing android user data?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re: no great suprise by saloomy · · Score: 2

      I use an iOS device, have ever since the first iPhone, but it always surprised me how Facebook knew my suggested friends so well. Some people I haven't spoken to in years would suddenly show up, sometimes obscure work connections. They must have had android phones and figured out who I was from their metadata. I wonder how many of my calls to android devices they have and can piece together a pretty good portion of the meta data they would have garnered from me if I had switched to Android.

    5. Re:no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The same for me. I have never used Facebook, partly because I suspected something like this would happen. It was just common sense.

      I see you've been modded down because someone doesn't want to face the fact that they are gullible and got easily taken for a fool.

    6. Re: no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Allow idiotic app to access all phone data.
      2) Download list of data allowed in 1 from app publisher.
      3) Write about how shocked you are.
      4) Profit.

    7. Re:no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you because really this is a Android problem, not Facebook, because Android is the one that allows developers to request all this and store it.

      And Facebook is the one that exploited the flaw to scrape personal data without permission, with a flagrant disregard of privacy laws the world over.

    8. Re: no great suprise by reanjr · · Score: 3

      Don't be so sure about that. Facebook is pulling from all sorts of data sets to figure out networks, including your GPS data, like if you're at a party with people.

      If you have the FB app installed, you're part of the problem.

    9. Re:no great suprise by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Fixed that for you because really this was a Android problem

      Fixed that for you, Android hasn't had this problem for quite a while now and ultimately users were always warned what was accessible to the apps and could choose not to use them.

    10. Re: no great suprise by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The takeaway is that we are all victims of Android, but some pay significantly more (for an Apple iGadget) and don't even get the Android phone to use.

    11. Re: no great suprise by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      You mean Apple did not have this problem, as far as you know? Fixed that for you. Apple does or did have this problem, and many others, you just are not aware of it. Also, it is most certainly NOT an Android problem, it is a GOOGLE problem. Android is an operating system, and as an inanimate object, cannot harbor intent, either good or ill. It is the PEOPLE BEHIND it that do. Google dropped their laughable motto about not being evil behind a long time ago. They are at least moderately evil now, like every other for-profit thing there is MUST be.

      The Free/Libre Open Source Software movement and its proponents, boosters, users, and contributors are the most honest and trustworthy group you can find, among people who create software because unlike any for-profit entity, their intent is to create software for themselves to use and share with others, following the stone-soup paradigm of creation and development. By contrast, companies that publish software for money have to be viewed with at least mild suspicion. Their motives are to make money, rather than to make software they themselves want to use, and so it would be prudent to wonder what OTHER thing they are doing to make money, i.e., selling your data which they harvest. COULD someone in the FL/OSS movement do this too? Of course, but since the source-code is available to examine, theyâ(TM)d more than likely quickly get caught, exposed, and the time and effort they put into their software would end up having been squandered. Just saying. The only way to harvest your user base data, metadata, etc., and have any hope of doing it for any length of time and not get caught by convincing people to put software on their own devices that spies for you, is to ensure they cannot see the source. Even if you yourself are not knowledgeable enough for a code-audit or review, other people out there are. That doesnâ(TM)t mean that one should trust FL/OSS implicitly, but of software made on the closed-source versus open-source model, I find the open-source the one generally more worthy of trust. Usually. Come to think of it, maybe I SHOULD learn to code and start reviewing all the source code to my entire GNU/Linux install... hehehe, sure. I have time for that.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    12. Re: no great suprise by donstenk · · Score: 1

      Good point, now where is my OSS phone?

      --
      Dennis Onstenk
    13. Re: no great suprise by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      As soon as you finish creating and open-sourcing it.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    14. Re:no great suprise by wiretrip · · Score: 1

      It's not a flaw; you are asked, on installing the app, for permission for it to read contact and message data. Most peoplke just click yes because most people are quite thick about these things really... I cannot believe that people are only just realising this stuff..

    15. Re:no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you delete Facebook though? My Verizon Android came with the Facebook app pre-installed, I agreed to nothing. I couldn't uninstall it but I could mark it not to run (supposedly) so that is what I did. Never had a Facebook account, never will.

      But my daughter uses Facebook, my mother as well, so if I talked or texted them then Facebook has some of my information that I did not agree to them having.

      If we require that the big credit bureaus make available a copy of our credit reports on a yearly basis for free, and we have the right to challenge any data on those reports such that they have to confirm or remove it, shouldn't we have the same rights with Google or Facebook? Shouldn't we be able to demand at least once a year for a full accounting of all information they have on us? And in the case of FB which I never agreed to share data with shouldn't I have the right to demand it be removed?

    16. Re: no great suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By contrast, companies that publish software for money have to be viewed with at least mild suspicion. Their motives are to make money, rather than to make software they themselves want to use, and so it would be prudent to wonder what OTHER thing they are doing to make money

      Except Free/Libre Open Source Softwares are being sponsored and backed up financially by these same companies which publishes software for money. Have you tried to download Linux Kernel [kernel.org]? Scroll down and notice their sponsors where Red Hat, Google, HP and other for-profit companies. Ever wondered why systemd was forcefully shoved our throat and nobody seems to effectively stop this stupidity? Yep, Big Bad Corporations who wanted your private data.

  2. Facebook is broken by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it has been from the beginning. Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data, and that's how he's built the whole thing: screw people and their data.

    Now it shows.

    What surprises me the most is how this did not happen before.

    1. Re:Facebook is broken by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What surprises me the most is how this did not happen before.

      What surprises me the most . . . is that I am NOT surprised at these recent revelations. It's exactly what I suspecting that Facebook was doing, "under the covers" . . .

      However, I am certain, that in the coming days, something Facebook is doing WILL be revealed that will surprise me. Oh, and that will probably be something *really* frightening, like:

      "Facebook collects data on US military service personnel and sells it to Islamist organizations."

      "Facebook tracks location data of Russian dissidents and sells it to the FSB so they can easily find the right person to poison."

      Facebook has proven that they will do anything to make a buck, so hey, although those things might sound outrageous . . . they are completely probable in the Facebook universe.

      Helping folks hack elections is small fry. Let's just wait and see when the whales get reeled in . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Facebook is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but also, Android is broken. At least in iOS its easy to see what apps have access to what, and turn off and on the hook they have into the address book, sms, mic, camera, GPS etc etc etc etc.

      Glad I deleted the Facebook apps off my devices several years ago, I never had a good feeling about the apps or what else they might be up-to. If I really want to Facebork from my phone I do it in the browser, yeah its clunky in some places, but also stops me from using it a whole lot.

    3. Re:Facebook is broken by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. This is mostly Androids fault, not Facebooks

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Facebook is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could delete Facebook. I can't delete the Facebook app from my Android phone, the best I can do is disabled it. I had to purchase a third party app to make sure Facebook services were disabled.

    5. Re: Facebook is broken by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

      There is not a single finger to point here. Everyone in the party can be said to be part of a massive spying effory, including willingly using falsebook ( and all the other social voyeurism businesses) in the first place. Yes, they said they would respect you, but hey, guess what everyone? Corporate america loves money more than they respect you. If you dont like it, then dont buy into it!

    6. Re:Facebook is broken by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now it shows.

      What do you mean "Now it shows"? Literally the first thing Facebook messenger says after you open it for the first time is that it wants to take over your calling and SMS functionality on the phone.

      The only thing that is happening "now" is that people see something in the news and suddenly freak out about their phone which they don't understand because they never read a single thing that was displayed to them. This isn't a Facebook problem, it's a retards using Facebook problem.

      Permissions requested, blah blah. Ok. What a welcome screen? Welcome to, blah blah, Next *click* next *click* next *click* Get me into the frigging app already

      Wait what do you mean Facebook knows my SMS history!!! I'm OUTRAGED

    7. Re:Facebook is broken by epine · · Score: 1

      Yes, but also, Android is broken.

      I quickly figured out that the hassle of finding an Android app without obnoxious permission structures (and which remained stable over time) generally exceeded the value of the resulting app.

      I only ever installed two or three apps with access to my contacts (this eliminated most applications). One of those was Google, another was the Pebble watch application. Google probably didn't leak the whole caboodle to a third party (they are too greedy to share). I don't know about Pebble, but I do know that the companion Runkeeper app was no saint.

      Fitness App Runkeeper Secretly Tracks Users At All Times, Sends Data to Advertisers

      There's no way for Pebble to send call notifications to the watch without gaining access to call metadata, so the whole idea of a smartwatch makes that particular privacy battle unwinnable.

      That's part of the reason I'm in no rush to buy a replacement smartwatch now: Android is not on my side of this.

    8. Re:Facebook is broken by wiretrip · · Score: 1

      It is *not* broken - you need to give the FB app permission to read contact and SMS data - which most people do because they're stupid. Do we need to add stupidity protection in there too now? Maybe yes...

    9. Re:Facebook is broken by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      What's broken is that until Android 5 (I think) there was no fine-grained permission control: either you gave an app all of the permissions it asked for, regardless of whether or not they were needed for its core function, or you didn't install the app. It's true that it was functioning as designed, but that doesn't mean that the design wasn't broken.

    10. Re:Facebook is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember on Android 2.3, you could root the device, and revoke permissions from apps you didn't want to have permissions for. And provide dummy data to trick it into working anyway. Now I'm really glad I went to all that trouble; FB has nothing on me except dummy data after I downloaded my data.

    11. Re:Facebook is broken by novakyu · · Score: 1

      You mean something like this?

  3. It's ever commercial app, not just fb by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why I had to uninstall my bank's app after a new version demanded access to contact list, etc. I never install the customer loyalty apps from any of the chain stores or restaurants; they all want this stuff and it's too instantaneous to say "oh, just use targeted permissions after installation". Nope; it will suck down your contacts and sms history faster than you can switch over to lock it down.

    1. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fun fact, read my banks TOS on their "new" mobile app. Two things were particularly disturbing - First, demanding access to addressbook etc, but second was including language that effectively barred any other user from accessing your device. I kid you not. When I asked why this was needed, I was simply told it's the way the banking industry is going. The TOS was a boilerplate from some other bank and the address book requirements were to "make it easier to send funds". ......

      To make matters worse, I don't even use their mobile app. The new TOS is required to be signed for any further access besides in person which meant their web app too. Technically their new terms forbid a spouse for example, from using your device.

    2. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why aren't you naming this bank?

    3. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by c · · Score: 2

      Nope; it will suck down your contacts and sms history faster than you can switch over to lock it down.

      LineageOS (formerly Cyanogenmod) with Privacy Guard enabled by default... I don't worry much about apps grabbing by address book anymore.

      That being said, installing the Facebook app is a bad idea. The mobile web site works okay, and I care about my battery life and data usage.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I never use my phone for anything I want private. No banking especially. I don't have a FB account but I do have twitter but had to take the app off my phone. I'm not really especially paranoid but a lot of these apps want to just about take over your phone. I get tired of struggling to make them behave after a while and just delete them. There's no way I'm going to use android for anything I consider sensitive though, I have no way of getting rid of the malware my carrier installed without putting a custom operating system on it and I just can't be bothered when it's easier just to use my hardened computer.

    5. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      it's too instantaneous to say "oh, just use targeted permissions after installation". Nope; it will suck down your contacts and sms history faster than you can switch over to lock it down.

      Where are you installing apps from? When you install an app from the Google Play store, it doesn't launch automatically and you can set the permissions before you launch it for the first time. There is no "faster than you can switch over."

    6. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is why I had to uninstall my bank's app after a new version demanded access to contact list

      Having access to the contact list is how many bank apps "Split the bill" functionality works. The cleverer apps even integrate with WhatsApp knowing that in some countries SMSes are useless.

      Personally I prefer to have legal protections of my privacy rather than having to carefully curate my experience with every company out there.

    7. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Why aren't you naming this bank?

      It's probably against the bank's TOS to do so.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    8. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That being said, installing the Facebook app is a bad idea. The mobile web site works okay, and I care about my battery life and data usage.

      The mobile website won't do messaging. I'm willing to live without messaging while on my phone, but it's still an annoyance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by c · · Score: 1

      The mobile website won't do messaging.

      Yes, that's one of my favorite features.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    10. Re: It's ever commercial app, not just fb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Technically their new terms forbid a spouse for example, from using your device."

      Not a bug, a feature.

    11. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by Rastl · · Score: 1

      The mobile website won't do messaging. I'm willing to live without messaging while on my phone, but it's still an annoyance

      Request the desktop site and you get your messaging back in the browser.

    12. Re:It's ever commercial app, not just fb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mobile website won't do messaging.

      That was a feature of FB, this forces you to download FB app just so they can slurp your personal data and addressbook.
      On a side note, around 2011 I uninstalled WhatsApp and avoided their free calls because of this very same feature where your addressbook needs to be uploaded to WhatsApp server. People should learn to read EULA of those apps and just stop b*tching.

  4. App permissions by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is why you look at the app permissions before installing and app. I was the only person I know that said, "Hmm, why does Facebook need to read my call history and contact lists?"

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:App permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck would try to install a social media app and then get concerned when it wants to access your call history and contacts? If you don't want that, you might as well just send out e-mail blasts to all your friends sending them pictures of your kids and what you ate on vacation.

    2. Re:App permissions by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People generally ignore what comes up because stock Android until recently didn't let you say "Oh, Facebook wants access to my call history huh? Well, I'll install it but not let it have that. Even now, rather than fail gracefully, Android tells the app that it's been denied a privilege so it can refuse to work until you give it what it demands.

      For Facebook users, the option was no app, or trust Facebook. Which, to be fair, they were already doing, so it's not surprising they installed the app anyway.

      The fact Facebook did use that permission, and does share that information with third parties, means at this point something more than a "Well, a small group of IT professionals interested in privacy who don't use Facebook anyway are doing to close our accounts! That'll fox them!" token gesture needs to be done. Maybe pressure on Google to ban the Facebook app completely?

      Of course, there's a reason Google won't do this. With anti-trust lawyers scrutinizing their every move, the prospect of Google refusing to give rights to a rival that it has for itself - even though it has those rights legitimately, I mean, how's the phone app supposed to work without your call history? - probably means their lawyers will ban any hint of action against Google.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:App permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, Android also never allowed silent access to contact list.

      IMHO, Runtime permissions are stupid. It just nags you over and over again. I would have preferred a checkbox-at-install so I don't have to answer a million popups.

    4. Re:App permissions by Spamalope · · Score: 2

      They'd try to get around permissions.

      I had fake honeypot contacts when I first installed the app. The installer at the time had no option to disable contact collecting. There was an option in the app. So the app collected that info during install before you could get to the option based on honeypot hits. At least a few updates reset the app to allow max info collection. With auto updates, FB would again begin grabbing info silently and transparently.

      I must say I'm stunned, just stunned to hear allegations FB is acting like a cross between a stalker and the stazi.

    5. Re:App permissions by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      People generally ignore what comes up because stock Android until recently didn't let you say "Oh, Facebook wants access to my call history huh? Well, I'll install it but not let it have that. Even now, rather than fail gracefully, Android tells the app that it's been denied a privilege so it can refuse to work until you give it what it demands.

      So what you are saying that the problem isn't fixed even now? Your first sentence makes it sound like Android has recently fixed this error -- but notifying the app causes the same problem.

      For Facebook users, the option was no app, or trust Facebook.

      True for all apps. I don't have Facebook app, but there other apps (Uber/Lyft/WhatsApp) that I actually needed.
      It's an outrage that my options are still trust the app or no app at all.

    6. Re: App permissions by nnull · · Score: 1

      It's not just Facebook. Google has been doing this for quite a while. The first time you turn on your phone, it wants to sync your contacts to google. I found this very annoying. Your contacts will get synced so fast, before you have a chance to do anything, it's already there.

      Then remember Google plus? The damn thing started suggesting for me contacts from reading my emails, contacts and phone history. It even picked out phone numbers that were not on my contacts list as suggested people I add from Google plus.

      And it's not like Apple isn't doing the same thing. Open FaceTime. It just magically knows these phone numbers of users have FaceTime?

      If lineageOS (Not lineageos fault) wasn't purposely being gimped by hardware manufactures, I would be using it more often.

    7. Re:App permissions by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The fact Facebook did use that permission

      Except the Facebook right up front tells you why it used that permission and doesn't even try to hide that it wants to take over as the primary Call and SMS provider on your phone.

      This is pure outrage by people who don't read the first screen that pops up when they hit the little message button.

    8. Re:App permissions by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Except the Facebook right up front tells you...

      Your point is what exactly? That because Facebook tells you one of the reasons why it "needs" those rights users are entirely protected from abuse?

      This is pure outrage by people who don't read the first screen that pops up when they hit the little message button.

      No, it's pure outrage by people who felt like they could trust a company like Facebook with the data they were giving it only to find that at every level, from call history (regardless of whether they used the Facebook app's dialer or not) to private SMS messages, Facebook was vacuuming up their data and sharing at least some of it with third parties.

      What's broken here is trust. Google built an operating system where you pretty much have two options - trust the authors of an app, or do not install it. Facebook built a service where they require so much personal information that trust becomes a necessity. And then they're betrayed. And out-of-touch nerds then blame the victims because, hey, they should have read the small print, ignoring the fact the small print was read, that it didn't cover everything Facebook did, and that this fiasco is built upon deception.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:App permissions by shilly · · Score: 2

      You're being too kind to FB and too harsh on users. The FB app asks users if they will let it *access* their contacts, and links this request to *helping them find their friends on FB*. It allows them to assume that this is *all* it wants to access their contact for. They assume good intent, and more or less that means "FB wants to look through my contacts *once* to find my friends who are on FB". That is completely reasonable, and completely different from what FB actually was saying, which was "we want you to give us permanent access to all your contact data, which we'll use as we see fit, and our excuse is that we want to find your friends who are on FB".

      This kind of clever-clever hiding behind people's reasonable expectations to do bad shit is exactly why FB needs regulating.

    10. Re: App permissions by shilly · · Score: 1

      Apple servers know which devices (and associated phone numbers) are iOS devices. There's no scraping going on.

    11. Re: App permissions by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

      Older Android versions may need a rooted phone or other hack to deny access to resources. See for example : https://thehackernews.com/2015...

    12. Re:App permissions by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Facebook does not need 'regulating' because that just hardens up the market they are in, making it harder for competing services to enter.

      Facebook needs to be broken up. If they want to be an 'identity' company that indexes everybody, that is a service they can provide so long as they are open, and other Social Network companies can plug into their identity services.

      The social network part of Facebook should be split away into a separate company.

      If the Identity entity can't be self-sustaining without the Social Network/Advertising entity, then the Identity part should become 'regulated' which is also known sometimes as 'nationalized.' Facebook and Google, Microsoft, etc. can then plug into the unified 'Identity Service.'

    13. Re: App permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look here Googledouche - NO ONE wants to let ANY app snoop their personal data. NO ONE. But you despicable curs designed the whole system so it's impossible to use without "voluntarily" being forced to hand over access to all your data.

      Thanks, scumbag. You and your smarmy collaborators have turned the United States into the surveillance state of Stalin's wet dreams.

    14. Re:App permissions by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and too harsh on users.

      No. I can never be too harsh on users. Users should be repeatedly bashed over the head until they stop blindly clicking "next" or okay to every dialogue that pops up, or worse, on windows, that little X in the top right meaning they've now got no idea what they system did in response.

      Facebook isn't the problem, and if we punish Facebook they'll just be replaced by yet another thing that has the same problem. Case in point: I gave my girlfriend a real earful after she installed a crappy little Disney game that wanted access to her contacts, approval to make phone calls etc.

      But this isn't even as subtle as that because ...

      The FB app asks users if they will let it *access* their contacts, and links this request to *helping them find their friends on FB*.

      Yes, it does that *too*, but that is not the functionality I was talking about. Facebook literally wants to become the default handler for text messaging be it via Messenger or SMS on an android phone. Accepting that will cause all incoming SMSes to be diverted to the phone along with the required functionality that the call and sms meta data is logged on Facebook (otherwise it would be quite useless).
      Even if you don't do this it still requires requests access to your SMS for 2FA.

      This kind of clever-clever hiding behind people's reasonable expectations to do bad shit is exactly why FB needs regulating.

      "Hi regulator we want to add this functionality to our app."
      "Sure Facebook, just give the users a popup warning to make sure it's opt in."

    15. Re:App permissions by shilly · · Score: 1

      I see "breaking up FB" as just a pretty dramatic example of regulation.

    16. Re:App permissions by shilly · · Score: 1

      Users should be repeatedly bashed over the head until they stop blindly clicking "next"

      I appreciate the purity of your position, but I suspect you may be waiting quite a long time...

    17. Re:App permissions by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I fully expect to die before it happens. I hope it's ironic like my next of kin clicks the X button when presented with "Are you sure you wish to turn off life-support."

    18. Re:App permissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're describing XPrivacy / XPrivacyLua. Basically, if a flashlight app wants your GPS coordinates, you can deny it and give it fake coordinates. Same with contact info, sms, call history, etc.

      This really should be built into Android but it won't since Google's business model is also based around collecting as much information on it's users as possible.

    19. Re:App permissions by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Oh, I would certainly agree. It's not the kind of 'regulation' that Mark wants. But seriously, Facebook bills itself as an authentication service for all kinds of third parties. In some ways they are THE authentication service. Which is a monopoly situation that makes what Microsoft has done in the past look like a bunch of pikers.

  5. Generally speaking, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you're concerned about privacy, you're not on Facebook.

  6. "...using a tool accessible via Web browser." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that narrows things down substantially!

  7. Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's Stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I made a hefty bit off of it but I dumped it this past week, the ship is sinking and it's sinking _fast_.

  8. Privacy policy by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Facebook privacy policy says they will access your address book, but it doesn't say they will access your call data. It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do. That's kind of weird, because you expect their lawyers to be on top of this kind of stuff.

    Not that anyone reads the privacy policy.

    It's really hard for me to feel outrage about this......something that's been a problem for years, and now they went a little farther so you are worried?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re: Privacy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now the one percent are offended by democracy and its enablers like Facebook. So all the cultural Marxists now feign outrage about FB.

    2. Re:Privacy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Facebook privacy policy says they will access your address book, but it doesn't say they will access your call data. It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do. That's kind of weird, because you expect their lawyers to be on top of this kind of stuff.

      This! If app doesn't explicitly tell that it wants (and will) grab my data, then it has no business doing so!

      Expectation seems to be that if an app CAN do something, then everyone seems to think that it's then ok; "you agreed to it when installing the app". Let's do a mental exercise and use this same approach with Desktop computing - if e.g. Microsoft (having read access to your local hard drive) was within their rights to upload every file stored locally to their servers? Or Adobe's Photoshop, or whatever you would be running on the box.

      Why is this mobile app space so special in this regard? App can do something, so it is ok for it to do it?

    3. Re:Privacy policy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do.

      Really? Because when I installed the app it said it wanted to outright become the call and SMS app on the phone. I'm not sure how you imagine this would work if they don't have access to call / message history.

      Someone didn't read the first screen presented to them. I assume all these people who are upset at this were too busy clicking "next" trying to get to their Facebook feed because they were desperate to see how many likes their stupid share had gotten.

    4. Re:Privacy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony in your commentary isn't that people are too stupid to read the dialog boxes, its that you seem to think that corporations will actually do what the dialog box says. Example: "Sync contact? -> No" -Contacts synced anyway. Yes they prompted, but they have gone farther than the prompts and even some people in the article on Ars suggested they never even installed the app that asks those questions yet that data is part of their profile. Go figure!

      So it isn't so much that people don't read, even if they do and object, the dirty work is already done behind the scenes; your data is looted whether you authorize it or not.

  9. Other shoe to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just now waiting for the bright-eye police officer to request a warrant to see everyone who has ever called / contacted a phone number of interest.
    On one side, those will be the ones that we know about, it's the other side that will be keeping me up at night.

  10. The news here is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be fair, this is well known. If you install the Facebook App on your phone you are granting Facebook carte blanche to hoover up everything on your phone - and even listen to your calls. If people choose to ignore the "advisory" notes that go with the installation and select grant permissions to access everything anyway...then what else do they expect?

    1. Re:The news here is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, this is well known. If you install the Facebook App on your phone you are granting Facebook carte blanche to hoover up everything on your phone - and even listen to your calls. If people choose to ignore the "advisory" notes that go with the installation and select grant permissions to access everything anyway...then what else do they expect?

      Pretty much all apps that I run on my Desktop have full read access to all of my local hard drive.
      Still, I do not expect them to upload my drive's contents to the cloud, at least without being very explicit about it (at least in privacy policy).

      Why should it be any different for Mobile apps?

    2. Re:The news here is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the folks referenced in the Ars Technica article claim that they never even installed the app, yet the hoovered up data from their phones was somehow part of their downloadable .zip profile. So even if they read the TOS and clicked NO or rejcted it, the data was looted anyway, and in some cases, without even installing the app it became part of a FB user's profile. How could that be?

  11. Facebook posts Appology Ads in US/UK Newspapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is actually paying for ads in major newspapers in two countries trying to do damage control-- no doubt following advice of industry consultants.

    Obviously, Facebook does not need to reach a few users in newspapers! Big industry learned long ago that you can buy some sway with papers with full page advertising campaigns. This is more about softening the attacks from the few places where actual investigative reporting still happens... and where serious policy makers still go for at least average news coverage.

  12. The time has come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make the Zuck a non-billionaire. Gentlemen, start your lawyers.

    1. Re: The time has come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. How dare he to conspire with every second American to elect a candidate not sanctioned by the moneymen and arms industry!

    2. Re: The time has come... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Zuckboy was planning on running as a Democrat for President in the next election. This whole 'crisis' might be a smear to prevent that. Or part of the campaign to make it happen. The one thing for certain is that Zucker is not a Trump supporter.

    3. Re: The time has come... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Very creative!

      Facebook's PR firms seems to have hired rather higher quality shills than the usual Chinese/Russian/Soros fifty cent armies we've come to expect on Slashdot.

  13. Blame the API... by cob666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not a big fan of Facebook, although I do use it at times to keep in contact with some friends and relatives.

    The story makes it sound as though Facebook was doing something underhanded and nefarious. They were ONLY doing what the API allowed them to do. Where is the anger toward Google for allowing this type of access in their API? I'm not sure how the Android version of Facebook works, but when you install the iOS version, it explicitly asks you if you want to give the app access to your contact list, you DO have the option to decline.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    1. Re: Blame the API... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you visit your aunt's house for Thanksgiving dinner you are given full access to her house. That doesn't mean you should sneak into her bedroom during the football game after dinner and dig through her dresser drawers. That's essentially what you are saying it is okay for Facebook to do.

    2. Re:Blame the API... by Solandri · · Score: 0
      Google has been ahead of Apple on this except for control over specific permissions. When installing an app on Android, it showed you a list of which permissions the app wanted. If you didn't like how much stuff the app wanted access to, you could choose to cancel the app's install before it ever began. Apple didn't add this capability until 2012.

      2012 (iOS 6) was also when Apple added the ability to decline giving an app a specific permission. So you could install an app but deny it a certain permission that it wanted. Google had that feature in beta since 2013, but didn't finalize it until Marshmallow (2015). (Marshmallow revamped how the OS and apps interacted, making it more difficult for apps to bypass OS-imposed restrictions like this.)

      Neither will let you deny an app permission to access the Internet (using up your cellular data quota). I'm guessing this is to protect app makers' ad revenue streams. You have to root your phone to do that, which is what I've done on my Android phones since 2012 with a firewall app. Newly installed apps have their network access blocked by default, until I enable it. I see firewall apps in Google's store which claim to work without root, but I've never tried them since I've always been rooted.

      Another issue has been apps which the carrier installs on your device (I assume they're paid to do it) which you can't uninstall. Facebook is frequently one of these apps. Google addressed that in Marshmallow as well, by giving you the option to disable such apps. They're still installed and still take up storage space, which is what I guess is what's required for the carrier to meet the terms of their pre-install contract, but the app is prohibited from running.

      Also, note that none of these restrictions apply to the OS themselves. e.g. Apple has harvested iOS users' location data in the past (they buried the request for permission in the EULA for an iOS update). Google does as well, but lets you deny it permission if you want.

      The story makes it sound as though Facebook was doing something underhanded and nefarious.

      It is underhanded and nefarious to abuse access your app was given for one purpose (e.g. access to your contacts so you can directly go from someone's Facebook post to calling them via the phone's dialer) and use it for something else which the user won't suspect because it's unnecessary for the operation of the app (downloading the entire contact list). Or for a non-Facebook example, you might give an app access to the microphone so it can capture a sample of a song that's playing on your radio, so the app can ID the song. It would be underhanded and nefarious for that app to then use the microphone to spy on everything you're saying. When I give the plumber permission to enter my house to fix the sink, it'd be underhanded and nefarious for him to then go into my bedroom and rifle through my home video collection and take a private sex tape.

    3. Re: Blame the API... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shouldn't ?

    4. Re:Blame the API... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Where is the anger toward Google for allowing this type of access in their API?

      Why would we be angry about an API that enables so many apps to work exactly as intended?

      They were ONLY doing what the API allowed them to do.

      More importantly the API enabled Facebook to take over phone and SMS functionality, something that it flat out says it wants to do when you first install the app. It would make for a pretty shitty SMS app if it didn't store a message history.

    5. Re: Blame the API... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and as long as you ask your aunt first, and she says "No you can't look through my stuff" - but then you do it anyway, only then is it okay!

  14. verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have facebook on my phone, but I suspect that Verizon is converting call audio to text and then selling the text to facebook or others - things I talk about or gps related items soon appear in my Facebook advertisements - there isn't a common email between Verizon and Facebook for me, so they might be connecting the dots by ip address

  15. Nobody forced you to use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's all your fault for being a fool.

    It's OK though, you can close your account now and move to a more reliable and open alternative. It's been in use for about 100 years and is better in every way. It is called....

    ---> Ham Radio.

    Just got a new antenna, by the way. 6 band cobweb 20-17-15-12-10-6 , it's working great and still have my vertical for 80/40 meters.

    1. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by svanheulen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have friends that use Facebook and do they have your contact info in their phone? If so, I have some bad news for you....

    2. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't do any good to sit and cry about what's already happened, leave it now.

    3. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

      GAP Titan DX, and 256' center fed dipole...

    4. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by Spamalope · · Score: 2

      Yep, that happened to me.

      I have done the obvious thing though. Plant a bunch of false information for them to hoover up as well. Poisoned stalker database is best database.

      When will someone make a web plugin that uses peer to peer to randomize FB cookies between users to screw up all the web metrics?

    5. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by svanheulen · · Score: 2

      I already did, 8 years ago. I even used the somewhat hidden delete option instead of just deactivate. Although I'm sure Facebook still kept my data anyway. But saying "nobody forced you" is silly because even if you never had an account, Facebook is still building a profile of you through your friends without your consent.

    6. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, I wish I had room for the long wire. :(

    7. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sold my smartphone and used the money I'm saving on the plan for a new radio.

    8. Re:Nobody forced you to use facebook by mohsel · · Score: 1

      Just like that other crap truecaller.com which is basically a phone contact sharing app. if somebody has your number and uses the app, your contact info will be searchable by all it's users, and will be shared as your dumbass contact wrote it.
      It's really sad.

  16. Once uploaded you are SOLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are able to have Facebook delete the data it collects from you

    That I'm pretty sure means they unlink the data from your fake config page so that you can't see it listed anymore.

  17. Welcome, all your base are belong to us by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"Facebook Scraped Call, Text Message Data For Years From Android Phones"

    I still fail to understand why this is a surprise to anyone. All this crap has been in the media for years. Can't use fake name, makes links without permission, makes connections with others without asking, sells your data to other companies, sucks up your history from every site you visit, tracks you everywhere you go, watches everything you do, demands your phone number and Email address and other contact information, and demands your face biometric and will just figures it out anyway if you don't give them, tags you in photos- even if you didn't supply them, refuses to actually let you delete things for real, enables bullying, has back doors for government access (and probably without due process), suppresses your free speech, manipulates "news" and data it gives you, takes political stances, annoys you to death, wields unbelievable power, actually depresses and disconnects people from meaningful [real-world] relationships, destroys attention spans, isolates non-participants, etc, etc. Hello people, welcome to Facebook. "All your base are belong to us."

    I don't have a FB account. Never have, never will. It is the ultimate in privacy invading spyware. It invades your privacy even if you have never used it. I hope it dies. My advice is disconnect and wipe what you can and and MOVE ON.

    1. Re:Welcome, all your base are belong to us by burtosis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Has back doors for government access (and probably without due process)

      In the slim chance case it didn't, it does now. Any government from any country now can get it no questions asked.

    2. Re:Welcome, all your base are belong to us by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Hello, I'm the Chief Justice of Ijustmadeitupistan. Hand over all your data.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Welcome, all your base are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please mod this insightful

    4. Re:Welcome, all your base are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a FB account. Never have, never will.

      Yes you do. You have a 'shadow' account. The difference is that you don't have access to your account, FB does.

  18. Buy an iphkne by Balial · · Score: 2

    Seriously. Google and Facebook are on the same side. Google wants themselves and others to make money from your data.

    Part of Appleâ(TM)s lockdown policy is so that these apps canâ(TM)t hoover every little bit of personal data from your phone. Unlike google, Apple have far more to gain by protecting your privacy.

    1. Re:Buy an iphkne by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Google and Facebook are on the same side. Google wants themselves and others to make money from your data.

      Part of Appleâ(TM)s lockdown policy is so that these apps canâ(TM)t hoover every little bit of personal data from your phone. Unlike google, Apple have far more to gain by protecting your privacy.

      Apple has less fine-grained security than Android does now, and they do steal all your data regardless of how little they gain from it.

    2. Re:Buy an iphkne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple apps can also collect data. Android at least requests permission from the user which data they want to share with an app. If the user agrees to share their personal data with an app then it's their fault.

  19. Re: Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's St by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope FB craters, hard! Iâ(TM)m so stupid for ever creating an account. Iâ(TM)ve closed it months ago, but still. Learn from my mistake; donâ(TM)t create a social media account. And if you did, close it.

    Thereâ(TM)s a great reckoning happening on the Internet. Just go back to the 90â(TM)s before all this crap happened. Go out IRL, and hang with people. For internet based interest and communication, go back to community based BBS, even meet them IRL if you want. Oh, how I miss the old days of 2600 meet-ups...

  20. Those of my friends who joined Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...gave away MY NUMBER which was in their contactlist, without me allowing it, and I wasnt even asked. How is this optional for me?

    1. Re:Those of my friends who joined Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah thatâ(TM)s one of the main problems with Facebook (and the Goog), you effectively have no choice because people who know you will happily assume it is OK to spy FOR facebook and give them all the data they can.

      The rest of us are dragged kicking and screaming into their world.

    2. Re:Those of my friends who joined Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you effectively have no choice because people who know you will happily assume it is OK to spy
      > FOR facebook and give them all the data they can.

      This is nothing compared to the coming world of always-on, real-time recording/uploading Gadgets like Google Glass or home bugs like Amazon Echo and their ilk!

  21. Shady by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    Can you disable the data harvesting and still install the app to use it? I doubt it. Genuinely curious. I'd try it on my phone to test it but I've got more sense than to use the Facebook app.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  22. I don't agree to the ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've noticed there are some FB apps preinstalled on my Android phone but I have never signed in to FB on my phone.

  23. Re: Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No, what you're stupid for is not digging down into the menus on your Apple gadget to fix the punctuation bug.

  24. Earlier versions of android didn't ask. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The permissions were fixed in the app store and sideloaded/preloaded apps, like facebook often was had whitelisted access by default.

    Most of the major carriers not only preloaded facebook, but in some cases made it an internal app, meaning you couldn't delete it off your device unless it was jailbroken (you could disable it, but carrier updates or other changes seemed to cause it to reenable itself.)

    I spent a great deal of time upon making the transition to smartphones replacing stock firmware images precisely because of these concerns. But the irony of the matter is: Unless you control the hardware and firmware, you really can't trust or control the software, which is the point we are at with all modern computing devices, save a small niche of SBCs with ultra-minimalist stage0 bootloaders. Bare hardware, at least at the consumer level, just doesn't exist anymore. And unlike systems of the past, like the 8/16/early 32 bit era, it isn't even a matter of the technical knowhow to replace the existing programmable sections, because now there are signing keys that refuse to allow it to initialize or boot if the signatures don't match up. And you 'don't need to know' the keys to make those signatures, or so the companies and government keep telling us.

  25. And non-users? by svanheulen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't even have a Facebook account but plenty of my friends do and I'm sure some of them use Facebook on their phone. So how do non-users get their info removed? This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook.

    1. Re:And non-users? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I don't even have a Facebook account but plenty of my friends do and I'm sure some of them use Facebook on their phone. So how do non-users get their info removed? This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook."

      Answer: You can't

    2. Re:And non-users? by svanheulen · · Score: 1

      I know. It was a rhetorical question.

    3. Re:And non-users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friends betrayed you, not Facebook.

      It might be that your friends are simply idiots and that's what makes this the most difficult. I think the only solution is a law against this shit, because almost everyone has friends which are morons. They can be nice, they can be friends, but they can still be stupid.

    4. Re:And non-users? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook.

      Did you have your friends sign an NDA when you gave them your telephone number? No? In which case your friends made it public information. It's up to you to get them to delete it.

    5. Re:And non-users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your friends upload photos of you FB get your biometrics, who you were with and proably where. From that they can help build a shadow profile.

  26. but it's not clear if this deletes just contacts by zdzichu · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are not sure what is deleted, just wait 2 months. Then GPDR will come into force and FB will have to DELETE everything upon request. Or cease functioning (the fines are gargantuan).
    This is of course if you live in civilised world where the regulation have force. If you live outside EU – tough luck, consider moving.

    --
    :wq
  27. Re: Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol yeah, because slashdot is an exemplary example of a coded website. Damn Apple for infecting the web ââ(TM)â(TM)â(TM)â(TM)

  28. Good for Facebook by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should read and think about what applications are asking for what permissions before you go and just click allow. Lets ignore the fact that no one should actually be using unencrypted SMS and unencrypted voice applications.

    1. Re:Good for Facebook by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Or... maybe there should be ethical standards (or any existing ones should be enforced) - instead of putting it ALL on the user?

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    2. Re:Good for Facebook by svanheulen · · Score: 1

      The issue here is that this also effects people that have NOT allowed those permissions. If you have any friends or family that use Facebook on their phone, it's collecting data about your communications with them even if you don't have a Facebook account yourself.

    3. Re:Good for Facebook by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      If you granted permission to read contacts during Facebook's installation on Android a few versions ago -- specifically before Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) -- that permission also granted Facebook access to call and message logs by default. The permission structure was changed in the Android API in version 16. But Android applications could bypass this change if they were written to earlier versions of the API, so Facebook API could continue to gain access to call and SMS data by specifying an earlier Android SDK version. Google deprecated version 4.0 of the Android API in October 2017 -- the point at which the latest call metadata in Facebook user's data was found. Apple iOS has never allowed silent access to call data.

      Users had to allowed access to contact data. If you don't know exactly why an application needs to have access to X, don't allowed it, flat out. They're many, many, many, application that I won't allow on my phone because they simply ask for permissions that they couldn't need access to, for a practical reason. Extending this, who uses unencrypted message application, even for SMS? This entire issue breaks down to users whom don't understand what they were doing and why they shouldn't of just clicked allow. Give Facebook a Gold Star and a high five, they exploited user stupidity.

    4. Re:Good for Facebook by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      There are standards, such that you have to click allow / deny ... very, very, tricky wording. If you don't know why an application wants access to X, don't allow it. I have a few pages worth of application that aren't allowed on any of my phone due to permission based issues, because they could not need access to X.

    5. Re:Good for Facebook by svanheulen · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. But I still have to communicate with people that don't use Signal. Which means I have no choice but to make normal unencrypted calls/SMS to people that could have have Facebook on their phone and gave it permission to access whatever. So yeah, they're exploiting user stupidity, but they're also exploiting anyone that communicates with those stupid users.

    6. Re:Good for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... maybe there should be ethical standards (or any existing ones should be enforced) - instead of putting it ALL on the user?

      Maybe Apple and Google should be doing some actual due diligence and denying more apps in their stores.

      Apple rejects apps because they don't scroll lists according to their HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) but why should apps like Tic-Tac-Toe be allowed access to Network, Location and Contacts data especially when they don't have a multiplayer aspect?

  29. Think of the children by eneville · · Score: 1

    This must be pretty good from the anti-terrorism point of view if you're trying to work out who is a member of a terror network.

  30. Shucks by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Damn it, I've never had a Facebork account, so I missed out on getting all my data harvested by shady companies.

    Is there any way that I could send it to them in bulk so I can catch up?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Shucks by svanheulen · · Score: 2

      Don't worry! If you communicate with anyone that does use Facebook on their phone, then you're all good. They have your info and they've made a shadow profile for you :)

    2. Re:Shucks by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Don't worry! If you communicate with anyone that does use Facebook on their phone, then you're all good. They have your info and they've made a shadow profile for you :)

      I don't think I know anyone like that.

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

      You don't know any friends that use Facebook? Really? Re-read what you replied to.

  31. Can divorce lawyers use this data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so, they have and will accelerate the use of FB data when it's use is to a client's advantage. Such data may possibly be more useful to them in a financial way than to the government's three letter agencies because there's probably much more useful data that's easy to pinpoint to specific individuals. It seems the three letter agencies spend a lot of money getting data on everyone and searching it whether it's useful or not.

  32. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sucks if you were stupid enough to install the Facebook app. Or be a Facebook user.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is for losers.
      Never used it because I felt it was a front to mine personal data for profit.
      I was correct.
      Be smart, stop being a loser, delete Facebook, it's a scam.
      .

    2. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still fucked. Facebook has 'shadow profiles' for just about everyone who's not signed up.

  33. Why run the app? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Do you really need Facebook notifications? If you just want to read FB, go to m.facebook.com on your favorite browser. No snooping app required for it to work, and they don't block messaging and try to get you to install Messenger if you use Opera on Android.

    1. Re:Why run the app? by rizole · · Score: 1

      Or just request desktop access on other browsers.

    2. Re:Why run the app? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or just request desktop access on other browsers.

      doesn't work anymore on brave. someone told me you can manually go to home.php though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  34. So that explains why.. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    I never use Facebook on my mobile, and only use the web client the few times I have to use Facebook for some organizations I am part of. I also make it a point to never share any personal information ever. And it really, really stresses the Facebook algorithms the f*** out. Every time I log in I get what by now seems more like desperate pleas for information. And browsing my front page is like watching the calm open sea compared to the in your face explosions of 'personalized' content I see others getting.

  35. Corrections... Apple ahead on security from start by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google has been ahead of Apple on this except for control over specific permissions.>

    Wrong, they have always been way, way behind, as I will illustrate.

    When installing an app on Android, it showed you a list of which permissions the app wanted

    How is something that everyone will agree to and you cannot individually control "ahead"? On Apple prior to iOS6 you ALSO knew exactly what an app could or could not access.

    If you didn't like how much stuff the app wanted access to, you could choose to cancel the app's install before it ever began. Apple didn't add this capability until 2012.

    WRONG. That is true of contacts but even from the start Apple has specific controls around some access, in particular location data. iOS 6 just expanded those permissions to Calendars, Reminders, Contacts, and Photos - a welcome addition as that was just when apps were starting to abuse contact access.

    But even before then Apple was still way ahead because they ACTUALLY VETTED APPS. There was far less a chance an app was doing something shady, because Apple was reviewing apps and monitoring network traffic...

    But even past THAT point, Apple was way ahead because apps never had phone/SMS access AT ALL until recently, so they could not be monitoring every call or text, period.

    Neither will let you deny an app permission to access the Internet (using up your cellular data quota).

    WRONG AGAIN. For *any* app on iOS you can specify if it may use cellular data. I forget when that was introduced but I think it was a long time ago.

    Another issue has been apps which the carrier installs on your device (I assume they're paid to do it) which you can't uninstall.

    Which we should all remember, Apple has never allowed carriers to do...

    Also, note that none of these restrictions apply to the OS themselves. e.g. Apple has harvested iOS users' location data in the past>

    Well you certainly are on a roll because that is ALSO WRONG. You had to agree to share analytic data with Apple for it to collect any data whatsoever, much less location data.

    (they buried the request for permission in the EULA for an iOS update)

    Instead of being wrong I'm going to label this bullshit as it's a question that is asked after an iOS update, on a screen with only that question. Hardly "buried".

    lets you deny it permission if you want.

    Well you seem to be implying Apple does not let you opt out. WRONG. You can always opt out of sharing data with Apple.

    The fundamental issue I have with your post is that it paints a picture of Android being in any way acceptable for a non-technical person to use from a security standpoint. It is not now, nor has it EVER been safe to let a non-technical person use an Android device, full stop. If you are pushing your friends and family who are not technically astute to use Android, you are putting them in grave risk - because they WILL do things like install Facebook and have every call/text monitored, and probably they have far more shady apps collecting the same data....

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. You are able to have Facebook delete the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You are able to have Facebook delete the data it collects from you" ..... does anyone believe that at all ?
    Facebook will simply push it into a shadow profile of you, YOU won't be able to see it, access or delete it, that information is THEIRS, permanently.

  37. Re:but it's not clear if this deletes just contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where they jail you if you make jokes they find unsavory? I’ll just stick to the us and not have we Facebook.

  38. Suggested friends were only contacted by SMS by alexandre.oberlin · · Score: 1

    I barely ever check Facebook notifications, however I recently adopted Opera Mini on my mobile phone. This app is preset to show Facebook notifications. That’s how I discovered that a person whom I only contacted by phone and SMS (no mention of them on any file of my computers or tablets) was suggested to me as friend. I always carefully avoid to give access to my address book, and anyway this person is only on my phone (used for tethering).

  39. Re: Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's S by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

    Hey, How about having a beer with real live frriends and having a real conversation?

  40. Re: Hopefully Investors Continue to Scrape FB's by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Apple only started shitting in people's website comments with 'smartquotes' in a fairly recent update. Why did they roll out needless shit that breaks functionality??

    Who am I kidding? They're Apple, it's in their heritage.

  41. Re:Corrections... Apple ahead on security from sta by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

    Apple is the momma bear who will always protect you. The problem is, that means you're just a bear cub and always will be. Now eat your grubs and berries like a good little cub.

  42. Re:but it's not clear if this deletes just contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear EU is not particularly friendly to immigrants.

  43. Re: Facebook posts Appology Ads in US/UK Newspaper by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    So they're giving lawful bribes to the semi-official propaganda organs, presumably for a little extra "fake" in the fake news coverage of their disreputable business practices.

    This is why only mindless tools still trust the semi-official media.

  44. So how to delete? by Shaix · · Score: 2

    So how do you delete this data without deleting your account? What is the link to the "tool accessible via Web browser?"

  45. The next 'scandal'; that the FB app reads WhatsApp by wiretrip · · Score: 1

    I predict that the next outrage will be when everyone realises that the FB and messenger apps also slurp WhatsApp messages from that app... (Possibly under the pretext of permission to read SMS Messages....). Remember that WhatsApp messages are only encrypted 'end-to-end' - if you are at one 'end' then you can read them in plaintext.

  46. This isn't news to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once texted someone about Ford F-150. The next time I went to Facebook, I was inundated by ads trying to sell me a new F-150. I was like WTF!

  47. I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would greedy sociopathic brogrammers be mean to people? /sarcasm

    So, what do you think. Has The Zuck has displaced Larry Ellison as the most hated personality in tech?

  48. Facebook sells data to Israel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mossad uses Facebook data to turn, create, assassinate informants.

    Jew Zionist conspiracy revealed to be true!