Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Acknowledges It Has Been Keeping Records of Android Users' Calls, Texts (slate.com)
Last week, a user found that Facebook had a record of the date, time, duration, and recipient of calls he had made from the past few years. A couple days later, Ars Technica published an account of several others -- all Android users -- who found similar records. Now, Slate Magazine is reporting that Facebook has acknowledged that it was collecting and storing these logs, "attributing it to an opt-in feature for those using Messenger or Facebook Lite on an Android device." The company did however deny that it was collecting call or text history without a user's permission. From the report: "This helps you find and stay connected with the people you care about, and provides you with a better experience across Facebook," the company said in a post Sunday. "People have to expressly agree to use this feature. We introduced this feature for Android users a couple of years ago. Contact importers are fairly common among social apps and services as a way to more easily find the people you want to connect with."
Ars Technica refuted their claim that everyone knowingly opted in. Instead, Ars Technica's Sean Gallagher claimed, that opt-in was the default setting and users were not separately alerted to it. Nor did Facebook ever say publicly that it was collecting that information. "Facebook says that the company keeps the data secure and does not sell it to third parties," Gallagher wrote. "But the post doesn't address why it would be necessary to retain not just the numbers of contacts from phone calls and SMS messages, but the date, time, and length of those calls for years."
Ars Technica refuted their claim that everyone knowingly opted in. Instead, Ars Technica's Sean Gallagher claimed, that opt-in was the default setting and users were not separately alerted to it. Nor did Facebook ever say publicly that it was collecting that information. "Facebook says that the company keeps the data secure and does not sell it to third parties," Gallagher wrote. "But the post doesn't address why it would be necessary to retain not just the numbers of contacts from phone calls and SMS messages, but the date, time, and length of those calls for years."
People that work in technology routinely skip the EULA, and those are the people that know better.
If those people don't read the fine-print, do you expect any average nontechnical person to read through the fine-print when they're just trying to install an app on their phone to make it easier to use than the web version?
This kind of crap is why I didn't sign-up for Facebook to start with. They might not be breaking the letter of the law, but to my view they appear to be fundamentally dishonest.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
People all over the spectrum skip the EULA because they're usually:
1) Written in legalese
2) 967 pages long
3) In size 8 font
4) Changes almost monthly
AND
Exactly three sentences worth of information that are of any importance are buried so damn deep in the typical EULA, that it's akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
IMO, if they want it to be binding, they need to remove the important stuff from the jungle of bullshit they intentionally hide it in and let people know exactly what it is they're getting themselves into. The average person should not require a Law Degree just to read and fully understand a damn EULA.
Disputed, not refuted. Refuted means to prove wrong. It is a very useful and specific word. Why dilute it just to sound "fancy" when there already is a word that means *exactly* what is intended?