Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Acknowledges It Has Been Keeping Records of Android Users' Calls, Texts (slate.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the finger-pointing dept.

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."

16 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Of course it has by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These companies every piece of information about you that they can. That's their business model. How can anyone be surprised at things like this?

    1. Re:Of course it has by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Of course it has by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Of course it has by war4peace · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've seen quite a few short, informative, clear EULAs, but they're exclusive to indie groups/solo developers.
      Any EULA coming from a behemoth company is unreadable.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    4. Re:Of course it has by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      4) Changes almost monthly

      This is probably the most important point. By agreeing to one EULA, you agree to any arbitrary changes that can be made at any time. That shouldn't be legal, but as a country we've been reluctant to regulate what can and cannot be included in a contract. As you point out, one shouldn't need a law degree to understand the contractual agreement for a basic piece of software.

      I think that there should be legislation that limits what can be in an EULA, as well as preventing any sort of language that refers to the software purchase as a lease in the EULA when not expressly stated at the time of purchase. The App Store (or wherever the software is bought) ought to say "lease for $xx" if you don't actually own the software. If it says "buy for $xx" or just the price, it's implicit that the purchaser will own it outright, not that they will lease it. It's sad because there's so much good that could be achieved through legislation, yet those who have the power to enact it only use it for nefarious means.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  2. I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in years by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and this is partially why, along with raping my battery.

    Can't tell me wanting to collect this data isn't part of why they try to strong-arm you into using their apps by intentionally cutting down on what they'll allow you to do with a mobile browser.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  3. Actually An Opt-Out by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A "default opt-in" is known as an "opt-out" to everyone but shills (or marketing, more or less the same thing).

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  4. Re:I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in ye by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had it for about 6 months in 2011, before tracking battery drain to it. I think it has probably improved since then, but I got used to checking facebook via the web page on my own terms, rather than getting spammed with notifications all day. Then I noticed them trying to push me back to the app, first by taking Messaging away from the mobile web interface, and more recently by popping up messages about my friends posting time-limited stories that you need the app to view. When they started that tactic, I took it as a sign that the app was doing something nefarious, so it just made me more determined to avoid it.

  5. Re:I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in ye by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    F'book Messaging works fine in Opera for Android, or if you change your UserAgent string to pretend to be Opera.

  6. Idiots may opt in. by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    But Facebook doesn't just track the idiots, it tracks everybody those idiots interract with whether they are a Facebook user or not. That is exactly what the government needs to crack down on and crack down hard.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Idiots may opt in. by tgeek · · Score: 2

      But Facebook doesn't just track the idiots, it tracks everybody those idiots interract with whether they are a Facebook user or not. That is exactly what the government needs to crack down on and crack down hard.

      So true. Actual incident that happened about a year ago: I was sitting at home on a Sunday afternoon. I get a call on my work cellphone -- I keep a separate personal cellphone and never mix the two: never work stuff on the personal and vice versa. The call is from somebody at work from a completely different department who I never have dealt with before. Ordinary phone call - we talk a few minutes and I resolve an issue he was having. The strange thing is, the very next day that same person popped up as a friend suggestion on my personal cellphone with FB app installed.

      It was disturbing to me how FB made that connection to me from just a phone call. Looking back now, I can speculate that he added me as a contact on his phone before/during dialing and his FB app harvested that. From there I guess it was simple (I have an unusual surname) to link that phone call to an otherwise unrelated FB account.

      Now you may be thinking "Yeah, well that's what you get for having a FB account" - but I would counter that whatever I do on the personal side is fair game, but I never gave any consent to allow FB to bridge my personal and professional business.

  7. Re:I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in ye by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

    It works fine in Chrome too if you enable the "Desktop site" setting.

  8. Disputed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ars Technica refuted their claim that everyone knowingly opted in.

    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?

  9. Only Android by shilly · · Score: 2

    Surely it's noteworthy that FB was only able to behave this badly on the Android platform. Whether it was for technical or policy reasons, it wasn't possible on iOS.

  10. Re:I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in ye by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    I don't wan't vulgar posts from my crazy niece to appear on the screen of my work device

    Why are you logged in to your personal FB on your work device?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. Re:I haven't had a Facebook app on my device in ye by war4peace · · Score: 2

    Because some employers are OK with that. Because carrying two or more phones is generally a stupid idea. Because he can.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)