Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Pays Teens To Install VPN That Spies On Them (techcrunch.com)

A new report from TechCrunch details how "desperate" Facebook is for data on its competitors. The social media company "has been secretly paying people to install a 'Facebook Research' VPN that lets the company suck in all of a user's phone and web activity," a TechCrunch investigation confirms. "Facebook sidesteps the App Store and rewards teenagers and adults to download the Research app and give it root access in what may be a violation of Apple policy so the social network can decrypt and analyze their phone activity." From the report: Since 2016, Facebook has been paying users ages 13 to 35 up to $20 per month plus referral fees to sell their privacy by installing the iOS or Android "Facebook Research" app. Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. The program is administered through beta testing services Applause, BetaBound and uTest to cloak Facebook's involvement, and is referred to in some documentation as "Project Atlas" a fitting name for Facebook's effort to map new trends and rivals around the globe.

We asked Guardian Mobile Firewall's security expert Will Strafach to dig into the Facebook Research app, and he told us that "If Facebook makes full use of the level of access they are given by asking users to install the Certificate, they will have the ability to continuously collect the following types of data: private messages in social media apps, chats from in instant messaging apps -- including photos/videos sent to others, emails, web searches, web browsing activity, and even ongoing location information by tapping into the feeds of any location tracking apps you may have installed." It's unclear exactly what data Facebook is concerned with, but it gets nearly limitless access to a user's device once they install the app.

82 comments

  1. How is this legal in the first place? by smartr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you encourage someone to commit a crime and help them along the way, you are an accessory to that crime. How is paying teenagers to silently send over private communications without broadcasting that fact not a violation of existing privacy laws?

    1. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by BlacKSacrificE · · Score: 1

      What crime? They are asking users to take money to share that information for money. There is no deception, these idiots are agreeing to it. How is it a breach of privacy laws if these drones have agreed to this data collection, and are taking payment for it?

      --
      [Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
    2. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by smartr · · Score: 2

      Did the third party that's communicating with the idiots agree to have their communication snooped by Facebook?

    3. Re: How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BeauHD can ask his classmates for some

    4. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asking minors to do something like this without parental consent is a crime (at least in Canada).

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    5. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by smartr · · Score: 2

      Is it legal to record private conversations without telling the party you are communicating with, or to record private conversations without being a party of the conversation?

    6. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by smartr · · Score: 1
    7. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 1

      In Canada : The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a
      general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but
      then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication
      consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking,
      Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not
      other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.

      ref: https://legaltree.ca/node/908   

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    8. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure you can SHARE this record with a party not involved in the
      conversion. So in this case, what Facebook is doing is probably illegal here.

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    9. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in the US if it's not explicitly illegal, to the point of being hit with a summary judgement, it's fair game to any would be abuser.

      TL;DR The US is morally and ethically bankrupt. As long as it makes money / power it's all good.

    10. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much kiddy porn do you think the Zuck is hoovering up from all those 13-year-olds? How much of that kiddy porn do you trust Facebook to actually delete?

    11. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

      Is it legal to record private conversations without telling the party you are communicating with, or to record private conversations without being a party of the conversation?

      it is in Texas as we are a one-party consent state. as long as one party knows they are recording, its legal, and that one party normally can be/is the person doing the recording.

      Texas Wiretapping Law. Texas's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Texas makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Texas Penal Code 16.02.

    12. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by smartr · · Score: 2

      There are many two-party consent states. Also, how far does consent of a teenager go, even if a parent signs off on it? Teenagers are generally not of the age of "consent", and the "consenting" adults aren't members of the conversations that are being recorded.

    13. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Even in Texas, Facebook isn’t considered a party to the conversation. It’d be illegal wiretapping.

    14. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to see the CFO of facebook to be detained in Canada on transit because "rule of law". Oh wait....

    15. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. I'd like to see a huge fine that reduces the national debt by 50%. Yes I know how much that is. I hate Facebook that much.

    16. Re: How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll show you my penis if you donate:

      3HcEB6bi4TFPdvk31Pwz77DwAzfAZz2fMn

    17. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't agree to a contract if you aren't at least 18.

    18. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by umghhh · · Score: 2

      Is the VPN not sold with an argument about protecting privacy? If so then any abuse of it would be invalidating the commercial claim which in some jurisdictions is a crime which is prosecuted if people complain.

    19. Re: How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But...what if you agreed through some legalese gobbledegook? For some of these participants getting $X/week even if it means selling their soul and pushing drugs on the streets...they'll do that. They'll do that if sugar daddy is Daryl from the hood or Mark Zuckerberg from the Hamptons. The problem here is that Facebook is looking for willing data donors. We've proven to ourselves that we don't understand the value of our data so we can't really sell it in any informed capacity. Give your data to Facebook and they'll sell it to the highest bidder, and/or corrupt a democracy or two while doing it. ...but just keep clicking those "Like" buttons y'all.

    20. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you encourage someone to commit a crime and help them along the way, you are an accessory to that crime. How is paying teenagers to silently send over private communications without broadcasting that fact not a violation of existing privacy laws?

      Its not FaceBooks fault... Mark and his staff apparently thought that VPN stod for Very Perverted Network.. and since that's their thing.. it seemed the obvious choice... and at the same time getting some cash... as pervs, it is the ultimate deal for them... the victims pay for the privilidge of being spied upon,,,, well played Mark... well played...

    21. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did every single person they communicate with, have a phone book profile of, or take a picture of, also consent to this agreement?

    22. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://youtu.be/KqSB4DFZqoM - Mark Zuckerberg, probably

    23. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just got a slap on their wrist.

      https://www.recode.net/2019/1/30/18203231/apple-banning-facebook-research-app ... and Facebook has millions of wrists.

      "My Bad! I'll try harder not to get caught now."

    24. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive them for they know not what they do.

      And rather than beat up on end users, a slashdot favorite activity, how about we start warning people about the dangers of what we all do.

      Unless that will cause your stock options to go underwater, of course.

      Greedy Silicon Valley selling out humanity.

    25. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it is illegal to track the location of minors without consent of their parents.

    26. Re:How is this legal in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post makes you sound like a sociopath.

  2. Digital Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're fucking stupid enough to agree to this then you deserve to have your data dissected.

    Idjits.

    1. Re: Digital Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $20 per month. Bahahahah

    2. Re: Digital Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imma gonna make me a whole bunch of sandboxed VM's and install this on each of them. It'll be just like collecting a Universal Basic Income.

    3. Re: Digital Darwinism by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Funny

      1k android VMs 'poisoning the well'? Sounds like a 'win/win' to me.

      Anybody know how they select accounts? I smell profit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re: Digital Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smell like unwashed ass. God you're boring AF

    5. Re: Digital Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smell like unwashed ass.

      Then get your nose out of his ass before it turns brown permanently. And no, you cannot immediately stick it up Zuckerberg's when you're done with Wumpus'.

  3. Digital prostitution... by Picodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...where the johns are corporations and naïve/desperate teens (and others) are exploited as usual.

    I’m especially astounded at the installation of a root certificate. This allows Facebook “researchers” to mount man-in-the-middle attacks on any of their “secure” transactions. It’s hard to believe that their suppliers/victims truly understood the implications when they signed up for it. I’m also wondering about the legality of such paid surveillance with minors (assuming they can legally consent to that).

  4. Edit: Parental consent was sought by Picodon · · Score: 2

    Ah, I had missed the paragraph that says that Facebook obtained parental consent for minors. (apologies)
    However, I find Facebook’s assertion “There are no known risks associated with the project” rather... interesting.

    1. Re:Edit: Parental consent was sought by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Sure. That guy that drove up to my house in a sports car the other day, and offered me prime investment opportunities in luxury homes in the UAE, hardwood plantations in the Amazon, and even a mutual fund with a guaranteed monthly 10% return, also told me “there are no known risks associated with these projects”. My dealer also tells me heroin and krokodil are perfectly safe.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Edit: Parental consent was sought by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Nothing beats a hit of krokodil directly into the genital region.

    3. Re:Edit: Parental consent was sought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I had missed the paragraph that says that Facebook obtained parental consent for minors. (apologies)
      However, I find Facebook’s assertion “There are no known risks associated with the project” rather... interesting.

      I predict that laws will eventually exist that prohibit spying on kids period, without some kind of lawful court order.

      Come to think of it, if I could get one constitutional amendment, and the price was Donald Trump is president for a full 8 years, then I'd grudgingly be okay if the amendment was, "You can't sell a right period. A company, a person, or even the government could pay you not to tell your story, but you can ignore it and do it anyway, with no repercussions whatsoever."

      Think about it. What if corporations couldn't just pay people off to make messes go away? What if politicians couldn't? You know Donald Trump would have been in deep trouble without the ability. Stories like this make me wonder just how many people Facebook has paid off to hush up troubling stories. They certainly seem to have no trouble walking right into the ethical minefields.

    4. Re: Edit: Parental consent was sought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No profitable company knows what an ethical minefield looks like, or they just plow through it and hope too many people in the boiler rooms don't flood under the decks.

      Forget that, insurance pays for that.

    5. Re: Edit: Parental consent was sought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your suggestion fails, because companies would offer leased and no principal repayment loans.

    6. Re: Edit: Parental consent was sought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your suggestion fails, because companies would offer leased and no principal repayment loans.

      In other words, they would just change it to a monthly bribe. You might have to flat out make payments like that illegal, though I understand they would try to work around it.

      There can't be multiple standards of justice; one for the guy off the street with the public defender, one for the guy who can afford a good lawyer and one for the guy who can afford a law firm, a PR company and can directly bribe members of congress.

  5. Now it goes without saying by AlanObject · · Score: 2

    I only learned this adage just recently (don't know where it came from) but I haven't ever seen a more clear example:

    If the product is free then you are the product.

    In this case since the cost is negative, so it seems the saying has to be extended somehow.

  6. Facebook = Societal Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And its infection continues to metastasize each day.

  7. Yea, self regulation works better than gov't regs by stevez67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How's that working for ya?

  8. So... same old FB spying then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They put beacons and magic pixels everywhere, their affiliates are snarfing data on thousands of unrelated sites, and they build profiles of you based on what others post without your input already. This VPN is almost redundant.

    I guess the interesting highlight would be they are literally PAYING people to fuck their privacy over rather than just incentivizing it with bullshit as before. STOP USING ANYTHING FB OR BE SHAMED.

  9. Captain Obvious Says by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I'm obviously preaching to the choir here, why do you think everyone and their brother wants you to use their " app " instead of a simple webpage ?
    They like to pretend it's for your " convenience ". Remember this story the next time you decide to download that " free " app.

    For those who have yet to understand this: Nothing is free. Everything comes with a price.

    Sometimes, it just isn't quite so obvious what that price is.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious Says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They like to pretend it's for your " convenience ".

      Marketers and promoters lie? That's hardly a new thing.

    2. Re:Captain Obvious Says by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      To be fair, apps often do offer a lot of functionality that's hard to acheive with a mobile browser, like "sharing" integration (share pics, videos, locations, etc), caching/offline mode, advanced notifications, along with a much smoother, more snappy interface.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    3. Re: Captain Obvious Says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing they don't tell you is that they make the alternative unbearable to make the app desirable.

      First create the disease, then sell the cure.

  10. If facebook could monetize an anal probe by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    they would and people would insert it gladly. Fortunately they haven't... yet.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. It's okay for facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because only American companies can spy and it's totally okay. When non-US companies outcompeting US companies, you get BS accusations that's neither here or there.

  12. Too bad Apple Won't Do Anything by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Informative

    They've deliberately abused the application testing program in order to harvest user data that they couldn't get by getting that application deployed through the App Store. If almost any other company did that I bet Apple would kick them off the App Store and make an announcement about how they are protecting your privacy. But since it's Facebook and they provide so much money to Apple I figure that the project will be closed but Facebook will just start a new one.

    1. Re:Too bad Apple Won't Do Anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Apple has a moral high ground unless it significantly affects their revenue. Then it's corporate business as usual.

    2. Re:Too bad Apple Won't Do Anything by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "They've deliberately abused the application testing program in order to harvest user data that they couldn't get by getting that application deployed through the App Store."
      The reason they are distributing that way is because... Apple threw the original app out of the App Store.

    3. Re:Too bad Apple Won't Do Anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprisingly, Apple just pulled the plug. Hard.

      https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-blocked-internal-ios-apps

  13. 20$ does sound good by OppMan29 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    install it on a phone I never use and has no other apps,,, Profit from Facebook

  14. How is this spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are being paid to allow Facebook to mine their personal data. The people know that Facebook is doing this. It's their choice to give up their privacy. There is a business relationship here not an adversarial intelligence gathering operation.

    1. Re:How is this spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, Facebook is selling that data to SOMEBODY and that somebody is likely the FBI, CIA, NSA, Mossad, MI6, or some other intelligence gathering operation.

  15. Like renting the office space next to the bank... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They look at their connection graph and find people on the edges of the empty space which they have not yet mined, and install higher strength collectors. That's why you and I never ever belonged to FB but FB still has most of our information anyway 'cause cousin Skippy sold us out for a few bucks.

  16. Google DNS 8.8.8.8 by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    using google as your DNS also provides all your surfing habits and a lot of other stuff to google. They could if they wanted to reroute all your content through google with the power of DNS they just haven't as far as I know.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: Google DNS 8.8.8.8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, there is dnssec - you can still record, but not reroute.
      Also same goes for your internet provider. Gonna trust someone...

    2. Re:Google DNS 8.8.8.8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ayup. Fortunately, Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 seems to have all the advantages, and none of those privacy implications.

      From the site:
      "Privacy First: Guaranteed.
      We will never sell your data or use it to target ads. Period.
      We will never log your IP address (the way other companies identify you). And we’re not just saying that. We’ve retained KPMG to audit our systems annually to ensure that we're doing what we say."

  17. How much more of this shit? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how much more of this shit are people going to put up with before they demand that Facebook be burned to the ground?

    1. Re:How much more of this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, how much more of this shit are people going to put up with before they demand that Facebook be burned to the ground?

      demand? I'd buy the tikki torches for everyone tomorrow if people even remotely cared about their data.

  18. As probably do most other VPNs.... by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 2

    I've always wondered about the wisdom of people paying for access to VPNs to hide their nefarious activities (mostly downloading GOT). Have these people not heard of man in the middle attacks? By using any VPN aren't you introducing a man in the middle? If you were running a VPN would you not be logging all the activity and thinking of ways of monetising it or gaining other insights?

    1. Re:As probably do most other VPNs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      By using any VPN aren't you introducing a man in the middle?

      Trusted root signing certificates can protect against just that sort of hijacking, even by the operator of a VPN. Of course, that only works when the VPN operator hasn't added itself to the trusted root certificate store on your device, as Facebook has done here. It's the difference between your device trusting the slashdot.org certificate issued by "Let's Encrypt" vs the one issued on the fly and signed by "Facebook Trusted Root", which is obviously forged but trusted by your device because your device trusts "Facebook Trusted Root". Facebook got around this protection by asking you to give it root access to your device so that it could install its signing certificate in the trusted root certificates on your device, right along side VeriSign, DigiCert and the other majors. That's like handing over your car keys to a stranger. It doesn't matter how secure your BMW anti-theft system is if you hand the keys over to the thieves. Facebook is taking advantage of the fact that the vast majority of people, and especially non-technical people, have absolutely no idea how security works.

    2. Re:As probably do most other VPNs.... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Facebook got around this protection by asking you to give it root access to your device so that it could install its signing certificate in the trusted root certificates on your device, right along side VeriSign, DigiCert and the other majors.

      Note that Facebook can't ask for "root access" on Android or iOS, at least not as "root" is commonly interpreted in Unix-like OSes (which both Android and iOS are). It can ask you to install a new trusted root certificate.

      The term "root" is overloaded here, but "root access" sounds like something different from what this is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  19. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's that working for ya?

    Stupid people cannot be saved from themselves. Having the government try to save them anyway just makes things even worse.

  20. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    In America, the home of corporatism, where big companies pay for laws to be passed? Did you forget where you live?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  21. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you rather govt had access to this data? Worst facebook can do is show you targetted ads, or ban you from using their service. Worst a govt can do is jail you, ship you off to Guantanamo, SWAT you, confiscate your property, and go after your loved ones too. And I'm probably still not being creative enough.

  22. Oh, how immoral! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right way to do it is the way the government does it: 5 years of mandatory minimum sentence and $10.000 in penalties if the teens don't use the facebook VPN.

  23. So is FB trafficking in child pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might make them sit up and take notice.

    Teenagers being teenagers, what are the odds that some non-zero number of them have installed the app, forgotten about it, and then either sent or received messages / images that would be considered child porn? My impression is that Facebook could get in serious trouble over something like that, and it's not a decision that only a few people at Apple or the Justice Department get to make in isolation. One ambitious prosecutor sees the opportunity of a lifetime for free publicity taking on an unpopular Goliath, and they're in for a world of hurt...

  24. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not a one or the other situation. If anything, Facebook collecting this information makes it easier for the government to have access to this data. Here's the breakdown:

    It's illegal for the government to obtain your information directly through surveillance.
    It's completely legal for Facebook to obtain your information directly through surveillance.
    It's completely legal for the government to purchase your information from Facebook or any of their their affiliates, since they are technically not the ones conducting the surveillance, they're just buying the results from a third party.

    By stripping power from the corporations to the point where they have to follow just as many regulations as the government, these "middleman" abuses would stop. This is the real reason why governments don't want to stop Facebook: Facebook is the best thing that's ever happened to the surveillance state. Privatized domestic surveillance, outsourced to corporations that have zero obligation to transparency, ready to sell its customers out to the governments that harbor them.

    The governments are stupid for allowing this, though. All the dirtiest secrets of these politicians are now known by Facebook. The stage has already been set for the coup. We're all fucked. Rich, poor, powerful, nobody, doesn't matter, we gave up our information (at least enough of us who matter did) and we're all fucked. Mark my words, Zuckerberg WILL be President one of these days, and that will be a day where even Nixon's evils will pale in comparison.

  25. Use a burner phone kids by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Have one phone with your day to day activity. Another burner with your bullshit facebook spyware. Use the burner to browse a few sites and simulate some activity so you get your $20 but otherwise don't do anything that compromises your privacy.

  26. Skeptical by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    if Facebook makes full use of the level of access they are given by asking users to install the Certificate, they will have the ability to continuously collect the following types of data: private messages in social media apps, chats from in instant messaging apps

    I am not sure this true, but It would not surprise me if some of the changes Google and Apple have made in recent years are a response to stuff like this. You essentially can't modify the Trust store on Android anymore unless you root the device. You can not for example install a private CA certificate on an android phone. Rig up the DNS server on your network with an A rec www.facebook.com 192.168.1.10 and put a server there with a www.facebook.com cert you have issues and go view in in chrome on that android phone without getting a cert warning... (you can do this on a rooted device though)

    Similarly on an Apple device if the apps are using ATS, and certs are already pinned etc you will also have problems even if you install an in house CA.

    Trust me I know this because i have to test a lot of mobile apps and this all makes it excruciatingly painful. Usually requiring either rooted devices or patching the applications just to get a look at the web services conversation they are using.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can not for example install a private CA certificate on an android phone.

      False. My company does this all the time for access to in-house websites - the user just downloads the CA certificate and installs it.

      No rooting or custom rom required. The user does have to enter their phone credentials, and the phone does warn the user that bad things could happen.

      Rig up the DNS server on your network with an A rec www.facebook.com 192.168.1.10 and put a server there with a www.facebook.com cert you have issues and go view in in chrome on that android phone without getting a cert warning...

      That is something else entirely - chrome (both mobile and desktop) has certificate pinning. Only some CAs are trusted by chrome for very popular websites.

  27. Predatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds awfully predatory. If I did this as an individual, I'd be looking at jail time and probably joining a sex offender list at the same time....

  28. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huh? "the worst facebook can do" is not show you ads! the worst they can do is SELL YOUR DATA TO ANYBODY WHO PAYS FOR IT!

    can you not imagine the negative consequences of such a policy? did i also mention that you can't vote on said policy...FB will continue to do it whether you like it or not?

    at least with "the evil gubmint" you can vote for the people who will make your laws.

    at first i was confused by, then i was mad at, and nowadays i simply fear...the people who have been taught to love mega corporations. name the last time any of those accountability-less profit-driven monsters provided a service that you actually NEEDED. like clean water, or safe medicine, or working stop lights, or firemen, or stable bridges?

    (crickets chirping)...I'm waiting...

    (tumbleweed rolls by)

  29. Where do I sign up? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    I've got an old phone in a drawer doing nothing, when it could be earning me $20/mo!

  30. Re:Yea, self regulation works better than gov't re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huh? "the worst facebook can do" is not show you ads! the worst they can do is SELL YOUR DATA TO ANYBODY WHO PAYS FOR IT!

    and then... then... yes! I know! THEY show you targetted ads? Yes, that's so much worse than shipping one off to Gitmo. I see the light now, thanks.