8 ms·
Facebook will shut down its controversial market research app for iOS
- tasubotadas 8y agoWhat a bullsh*t. People got some money for giving up some privacy. Nobody was forced to do this. And now everybody is freaking about a fairly reasonable trade. What's next? People will start harassing students/researchers that do paid studies?
- gaius 8y agoAnd now everybody is freaking about a fairly reasonable trade OK let’s imagine that you have a close friend or family member with some confidential issue - maybe an illness, maybe debt, maybe they are in the closet. Occasionally they message you, on old -fashioned SMS or email mentioning something about it. How many dollars is a reasonable trade to tell a data collection agency everything you know so they can add it to their file on your friend/relative?
- tasubotadas 8y agoWell, I pity the fools that assume that their communications are private when they are using SMS, FB Messenger, or Hangouts. If you want your info to stay private, do not send it to untrustworthy parties via untrustworthy means. Even if you stick with apps like Telegram or Wire (my choice), you have to have in mind that your phone might have a keylogger on (looking at Xiomi and Huawei).
- gaius 8y agoIf you want your info to stay private, do not send it to untrustworthy parties via untrustworthy means Well there’s the rub isn’t it. I don’t think most people would consciously decide to rat out their friends secrets for $20 - or indeed for any price. But somehow, it’s happening.
- mruts 8y agoProbably a lot more than $20/month. But it certainly has a price. What FB is doing is definitely scummy, but if individuals are disclosed of the risks and exactly what the app does, I think they should be able to make this trade if they want to. I probably wouldn't, unless it was in excess of maybe >$1000/month. And even then I'd probably just get a new phone. But people should have the right to sign contracts, even if they seem exploitative, as long as they are aware of what they are agreeing too. The main problem it seems here is that a lot of the people were underage.
- briandear 8y agoGood point. Someone else essentially gets paid to compromise your privacy without your consent.
- mruts 8y agoI mean, if you tell me something, I can legally decide to tell someone else. Unless we signed a contract or something.
- briandear 8y agoActually, in some states, to record conversations, two-party consent is necessary. 11 states, including California, require two-party consent. It’s a fair assumption that an app that is vacuuming up everything someone does on a phone is potentially gathering data that would fall under two-party consent laws. Also eavesdropping is also a potential crime under common law. It’s a murky legal area in this case, but one that certainly has some merit.
- gaius 8y agoSure, but maintenance of the confidence of a friend shouldn’t need a law.
- zapzupnz 8y agoCertainly nobody was forced to do it, but it is more than likely that nobody understood what they were being asked to do. Not only that, children were being targeted by this scheme. Lastly, the implementation on iOS circumvented rules relating to an app distribution which shows Facebook’s proclivity for flouting the rules. Pushing the app distribution thing aside, being aboveboard in every other respect is still insufficient justification for ethically questionable processes. Facebook has a history of unscrupulous untrustworthiness which should not be overlooked when examining the implications of the scheme, particularly the requirement to install a root certificate. To ignore the context of the polemic, to pretend Facebook is just another company rather than one of the largest collectors of personal, private information on the planet, multiple times caught invading peoples' privacy through less than honourable means, is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst.
- tasubotadas 8y agoWell, I am not a big fan of telling people what to do or what not to do. Do you want to sell your private info to some corps? Feel free to do so. Will it blow up in your face? Perhaps. I could not care less. It's your problem. You didn't know what you were being asked for? Again - it's your problem. People agreed to do that on their own, they got paid for that, and, most likely, they don't care if FB knows what kind of porn do they browse. All the stuff about ethics and "honourable means" is irrelevant in this argument. Is war ethical? Is spying honourable? Depends on whom you ask. >requirement to install a root certificate Requirement? You can just tell them to f*ck off. In any case, I could not care less about this, but what annoys me is the people that pretend to be super-nannies that gonna save the world by telling what the others should do. Through history, this has never worked.
- zapzupnz 8y ago> Do you want to sell your private data to corporations? Feel free to do so That isn't the point. The point is that Facebook preyed on technical illiteracy and a general and widespread lack of understanding of the implications of participating in the program. Effectively, the majority of participants were tricked. The age range for participants also included people who were not of age, and therefore not legally responsible for their actions. Facebook must accept that responsibility. The point is that Facebook flouted Apple's guidelines for the distribution of apps outside the App Store, showing a blatant disregard for the protections put in place to protect consumers from bad actors. Facebook has positioned itself as a bad actor through their actions, not only in the questionable collection of data the implications of which the users will likely be unaware, but also in how such a program was distributed: in direct violation of the protections offered by the App Store. The point is not about the choices made by the end users, but rather the unscrupulousness of a big company that knows better — but has done this before, far too many times. Finally, the very nature of online interactions in the modern era means that people aren't just signing away their own privacy but also, to a lesser extent, the privacy of those with whom they interact. Facebook is perfectly aware of this potentiality, but users are not and, on the whole, will never be because it isn't their job to understand the technical dimensions of online communication. A big company like Facebook, however, does know and should have behaved accordingly. > [...] is irrelevant in this argument. Is war ethical? Is spying honourable? What do these two examples have to do with the actual circumstance? "Market research" is not war, and it certainly should never be construed as synonymous with spying. Do not construct a strawman against which to argue, it demeans your argument. > Requirement? You can just tell them to fck off. You could, but then you would not be adequately participating in the research. You would not be using the VPN as described. You would not earn the $20. There would be no discussion. Of course, you're failing to account for the fact that none of the participants will have had the privacy and security implications of the root certificate explained to them in a way that made sense to them. They'll have simply followed instructions to get their money. I do not think that people should ever be blamed for being deceived as to the severity of their actions in situations such as this; a big company like Facebook does not escape scrutiny here. Clearly you believe differently, although the downvotes will tell you how well-received such a laissez-faire attitude to other peoples' private lives and preying on their technical ignorance is seen, so I shan't bother to comment any further. > what annoys me is the people that pretend to be super-nannies that gonna save the world by telling what the others should do Thankfully, that's not the situation at all*, and I fear you're simply projecting some negative feelings on to this article in order to justify having an unjustifiable gripe. Here's what's happening: - Facebook previously had a VPN service that it advertised as being for market research purposes. It was removed from the App Store. - Facebook then started using Apple's alternative app distribution method intended only for use in enterprise situations, not for the general public. - They were found out. - Facebook voluntarily ended the program for iOS users. - Apple revoked Facebook's certificate as punishment for flouting the rules. Who is tell whom to do what, here? Facebook did many things wrong, were found out, and were punished appropriately. The technical details of their actions were analysed and found to be vastly overstepping their bounds, yet in step with their continual and repetitive breaches of personal privacy. There's nothing more to it than that, so put the strawman back on the farm where it belongs.
- epaga 8y agoOne of the more important issues here is that after the whole Onavo thing already got them into hot water, Facebook completely flaunted Apple's clear rules re: enterprise certificates, and snuck in AGAIN through the back door. I'm very interested to see what Apple's response is going to be. I'd not be shocked (in fact I'd be delighted) to see them penalize FB in some way, perhaps suspend their App Store account or something.
- epaga 8y agoAaaand there we are: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-blocked-internal-ios-apps https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-b...
- klodolph 8y agoI think you might underestimate how seriously universities take research ethics, these days. Ever since the late 1970s or so. I doubt Facebook’s actions would have gotten past a typical university ethics board, which would be required before the study could proceed.
- dave5104 8y agoThat's rather charitable, comparing this project by Facebook to an academic study.
- klodolph 8y agoDid you mean to reply to the parent comment?
- mensetmanusman 8y agoWith the replication crisis hitting ~half of publications, there is still work to do.
- wheelerwj 8y agowell that was pretty fast.. less than 8 hours after the original post hits #1 on HN.
- skkdjfjsjdjjf 8y agoThat just shows how many Facebook employees are on HN
- denzil_correa 8y ago> It will apparently continue to be available for Android users. That's another interesting move.
- Irishsteve 8y agoSuspect its breaching some term of the app store or at least in a grey area. So it's a pre-emptive move to avoid the Apple has removed Faecbook app news headline.
- beezischillin 8y agoOn Android, they can just distribute the apk
- sandis 8y agoJust like “Onavo Protect” still is available on the Play Store - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onavo.spaceship https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onavo.spac...
- aboutruby 8y agoGoogle really needs to clean up the Play Store of all sorts of malwares and spywares.
- mattkevan 8y agoSo. Onavo was taken down and repackaged as Facebook Research. And now that has been taken down too. Wonder what it will reappear as next?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- paride5745 8y agoFacebook NotSpywareWePromise
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- CaptainZapp 8y agoFollowed by a "We totally apologize for making this mistake, which is totally on me and we promise to clean up our act and behave better in the future and we're sorry if you feel offended" apology by Mr. Zuckerberg a few month later.
- smacktoward 8y ago"We regret to inform you the duck is spyware." (inspired by https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/milkshake-duck https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/milkshake-duck)
- dwighttk 8y agono that's the name of their flagship app...
- philpem 8y agoPart of the Facebook app.
- SirHound 8y ago"Sorry we got caught"
- martin_bech 8y ago“... again”
- 11sdmb8m 8y agoCaught doing what? What they did was perfectly fine. Legal even under the GDPR, and people were being paid for it, which is the usual lament here ("nobody is paying me for my data"). Admit it, you just hate Facebook.
- mrweasel 8y agoWhat Facebook, politicians, and many others fail to understand is that there's a difference between legal and morally right. Facebook makes it exceedingly easy for people to hate them, while technically doing nothing wrong. Well sometimes they break the law, but then Zuckerberg just says he's sorry and we all move on. It's getting tiresome to watch our industry behave recklessly in the pursuit of ad revenue and the push to collect more and more data about the unsuspecting public. I enjoy my work in IT, but companies like Facebook, and increasingly Google and Apple, then entire IoT business and a ton of startups are increasingly pushing me towards being less connected, less interested in new technology. It seems like a huge chunk of industry is misguided. I'm sick and tired of it.
- 11sdmb8m 8y agoWhat you fail to understand is that the average layman doesn't care about data collection and ad tech. If it pisses you off that people don't care about the same things you do, welcome to politics.
- throwaway2048 8y agoThere is a difference between not informed, and doesn't care. How many people would be comfortable if you laid out the full spectrum of what is possible with the data that is collected, and how said data is distributed and sold? Its frankly a massively dishonest claim that people "don't care so its all fine".
- koolba 8y agoWould be nice if people prepare a series of questions about this for the next time Zuck is in the hot seat before Congress. Even if it doesn’t break any laws and acquired consent, this still smell so bad.
- webmobdev 8y agoOr rather - "Facebook was FORCED to remove its app by Apple".
- Krasnol 8y agoWhere does it say that?
- LeoNatan25 8y agoIt might as well be so. The we’re using an enterprise distribution method which only allows distribution to company employees. This is grounds for account revocation. (Not their AppStore account, their enterprise account. )
- Krasnol 8y agoIt might or it might be just the same way it was with the other app where Facebook took it down. Just as it says in the actual article...
- megous 8y agoIt's still on android. At least this reveals that the move is not about the users.
- Krasnol 8y agoThey probably took it down because as the original app it violated the App Store’s guidelines on data collection. But they have not been forced. The apple gate keeping here is terrible.
- hoppelhase 8y ago> They probably took it down because as the original app it violated the App Store’s guidelines on data collection. Or maybe Apple took it down because - as you said - it violated the store guidelines. Or Apple just encouraged them to do it by themselves (for a better PR). So effectively, they were forced.
- headsoup 8y agoYeah Facebook definitely just shut it down and walked away, definitely. No harm done...
- Springtime 8y agoCould an admin explain why the original news item, previously the highest voted of the first page, was pushed to the third page suddenly? Just wondering if it was algorithmic or manually changed.
- onli 8y agoWithout wanting to be too offtopic, I assume FB employees are waking up. Isn't there an office in new york? Probably flagged to death.
- dijit 8y agoHN also heavily penalises posts which have a high number of comments.
- sjilo 8y agoWhy is that?
- dijit 8y agoTo avoid controversial topics and flame wars (and likely to prevent heavy load on the servers since large threads cause significant strain on HN it seems)
- onli 8y agoRight, but relative to the number of upvotes the submission does not have that many comments. And it fell just on the start of the workday (right?), see http://hnrankings.info/19031055/ http://hnrankings.info/19031055/. I am aware that's not a wanted discussion topic normally, but if behaviour related to an article about dirty behaviour smells dirty it feels a bit relevant.
- sctb 8y agoIt's best if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com, because we can look at the actual data. This is mentioned in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- onli 8y agoAs context the HN submission of the techcrunch article, for those who missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055. Strangely just vanished from the top position.
- danso 8y ago“Vanished”? It’s still in the top 15 as I comment here.
- onli 8y agoSee http://hnrankings.info/19031055/ http://hnrankings.info/19031055/, for a moment it was on page 3, before it was #1. Happy to see it's back up a bit.
- danso 8y agoI wouldn't be surprised if people have been flagging it. Back when FB was getting slammed for the Definers controversy among other ongoing controversies, multiple commenters were bemoaning HN's purported collective hate against FB. That said, makes sense for that thread to move down while this current discussion stays near the top, as this discussion contains the newest developments/fallout. (in contrast, the similarly highly-upvoted Facetime bug thread [0] seemed to stay up longer, but no official fix had been made in the ~18 hours since it was first discussed) 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19022353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19022353
- sctb 8y agoThe standard here is one submission per news story on the front page. We've included this link at the top, thanks!
- RobLach 8y agoIf I tried something like this I’d have my developer account totally revoked and all my apps pulled; but I can’t imagine that happening to Facebook. It makes sense but it’s interesting that there’s a systemic de-risking of the way big players operate while simultaneously being in a position to do the most damage.
- maxxxxx 8y agoFrom a certain size on they need each other. Apple can’t afford to lose Facebook and Facebook can’t afford to lose apple.
- kuhhk 8y ago... so they allow themselves to abuse each other? Maybe enterprises should have % penalties built into their contracts here to effect the appropriate behavior if the normal rules don’t (or can’t) apply.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThey don’t abuse each other but their users.
- FabHK 8y agoGod I wish Apple had the balls of suspending the developer account and withdrawing the Facebook app from the app store. It's infuriating that most likely Facebook will again get away with a slap on the wrist. How will they make the next morally relevant decision?
- richardwhiuk 8y agoThey've taken the sensible step of revoking the Enterprise account, which is usually separate to the AppStore account.
- cwkoss 8y agoThey should implement permission controls so users can choose what functionality the facebook app can access. It sucks huge amounts of power, I assume the facebook app is collecting all sorts of nefarious metadata off phones at no benefit to the user. Fine grained controls would allow users to prevent facebook from accessing their information without the user's explicit choice, which would be a huge improvement. There should be a big "Facebook wants to read and analyze ALL of your contacts. OK or Cancel" prompt before each read, or you should have to explicitly allow "Allow Facebook to read and analyze all of your SMS messages at any time"
- wilkskyes 8y agoRemember when putting a picture of yourself on the internet or even using your real name was controversial? The old generation warned not to do it, ever! But teens did it widely and profusely. Now the new controversy is data. Don't ever sell your data! Don't give up your data! But teens are doing it widely and profusely. At some point you just have to accept that new people will be born and will have new ideas and just won't give a fuck. As a business you can either sit on the sidelines and watch or capitalize on it. Facebook will lead the way to allow for smaller players to get away with doing this as well.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoThis is the slow break down of society. Let's not cheer that on, shall we.
- wilkskyes 8y agoThis is literally what every generation seems to say about the behavior and habits of the next generation. I think it's pretty clear "break down" just means changes you don't like.
- krapp 8y agoYou haven't gotten to the point of proving that the "teens" would be correct to disregard their privacy, or that the "old generation" would be wrong to care about it. I don't believe the behavior you're describing actually falls along generational lines, though, rather than technical competence or awareness. It isn't only "teens" who use social media, nor is it only "old people" who are concerned about privacy. In fact, younger generations are leaving Facebook and social media because of privacy concerns and the negative effect it has on their lives. Your arguments here are stereotypical ageism and lack enough nuance to be convincing.
- vuln 8y ago>Facebook will lead the way to allow for smaller players to get away with doing this as well. That's not how any of this works. It's hard to 'move fast and break things' when a company like Facebook has used all the loopholes and gotten caught. Small players will never be able to replicate Facebook or their scummy tactics because at this point Facebook wants regulations. Regulations will ensure Facebook can and will continue to operate (can pay any fine) while the competition is hamstrung. If your competition is hamstrung it makes it easier to buy em up or wipe em out. Just to come full circle Facebook purchased onvo so they could spy on users and figure out which apps they were using and how often. Facebook then used this data to buy up companies. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-spying-app-shaped-monumental-decis.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-sp...
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoI really hope people remember all the ways Facebook is being scummy for when Zuckerberg decides to enter politics. We don't need more people like him in government.
- MorrisofOrange 8y agoI dont want this to happen. But I want to see it happen.
- nelsonic 8y agoFb is only "shutting down" it's iOS Spyware due to "bad press" not due to a sudden realisation that spying on children who are incapable of understanding the long-term consequences of the privacy invasion is fundamentally wrong/evil. Fb only stop doing things that are obviously morally reprehensible when they get caught or called out in the media. They never proactively doing the right thing. :-(
- danso 8y agoAlmost by definition, we're only going to notice the "right things" they've done that they don't get called out on (i.e. have attention drawn to beforehand).
- gaius 8y agoI would love to be a fly-on-the-wall at some of their meetings when someone says “So we are going to do data collection on minors without parental consent now” and all the developers just say “great I’ll code that up straight away”. Like is there no dissent at all? Is there no one at all who says “guys this is not OK”?
- princekolt 8y agoFor many devs it is still a dream to work in SV, regardless of the company. They'll do whatever they're asked to as long as they keep living there.
- dwighttk 8y agoI mean, according to the original article from techcrunch pointing out this issue there was a consent form minors had to get signed.
- gaius 8y agoThe BBC are reporting they signed up as a 14-year-old and there is no parental consent sought
- 8y ago
- wicket 8y agoMeanwhile... Google, Microsoft and Apple* _receive_ money from their users to harvest the same personal data that Facebook is willing to pay their users for and nobody bats an eyelid. * Apple is probably the least guilty here, however as long as their OS remains closed, we don't actually know how much personal data they are harvesting.
- heinrichhartman 8y agoYou can easily verify using Wireshark on a router, that neither Google, Microsoft or Apple are redirecting ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC through their servers. This is quite a step up from sending home some telemetry data.
- wicket 8y agoWireshark won't decrypt encrypted traffic.
- wicket 8y agoIt appears that you edited your comment above to make my "Wireshark won't decrypt encrypted traffic" comment look stupid. Nice try, so let me clarify... Facebook's market research app isn't "redirecting ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC through their servers" either. If you read the article it states that the app monitors phone and web activity and sends it back to Facebook. This is not really any different from sending home telemetry data. Google, Microsoft and Apple all send home encrypted data, most of which is not verifiable using Wireshark. I'm no fan of Facebook, far from it in fact, but at least this is an opt-in service and users are being compensated for sacrificing personal data. The same can't be said for the other three companies.
- aorth 8y ago> The Research app requires that users install a custom root certificate, giving Facebook the ability to see users’ private messages, emails, web searches, and browsing activity. Ouch. Yes that's really bad, even if it wasn't a violation of Apple's terms of service (it was, apparently).
- sctb 8y agoPrevious installment of the discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055.
- randomsearch 8y agoIf you have a choice, don't work for Facebook.
- meitham 8y agoI struggle to see how software developers can willingly do work on a project that goes against all values and morales! I have previously worked with developers in start-ups and was amazed to hear some of their backgrounds. One previously worked for a company that bundles spyware with freeware MSI products. Another worked for an airline agency, where they advertise fake a discount on tickets when the price was in fact higher than market. Needless to say, their actions outside the work environment matched their actions inside.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago> I struggle to see how software developers can willingly do work on a project that goes against all values and morales! Personally, this doesn't really go against my morals or values. They installed the app. No one forced them to. Not everyone has the same set of morals and values you do. If it's not illegal and no one is harmed. I don't care so much.
- bendotero 8y agoIt's the "no one is harmed" part I strongly disagree with. Perhaps they signed up for something and have perfect knowledge of how Facebook will use the information they collect (doubtful) but the rest of us will be impacted, manipulated and harmed in some way by what Facebook ultimately ends up doing with the data that their guinea pigs willingly gave up.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago> It's the "no one is harmed" part I strongly disagree with. I can't prove a negative. So you would have to prove the positive, what harm came from this app?
- 50656E6973 8y ago>can't prove a negative. Then why do you assert it as being truthful? The history of FB's data collection practices is replete with "harm".
- quotha 8y agoIt's not controversial, it's dastardly. Facebook will shut down its c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶o̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶a̶l̶ dastardly market research app for iOS
- quotha 8y agoAnd Apple just revoked Facebook's developer certificate. Nice.
- floatingatoll 8y agoEnterprise developer certificate, which is a different program than the standard Apple Developer program used to release apps on TestFlight and the App Store.
- quotha 8y agoIt's a disciplinary action for outrageous behavior.
- schnevets 8y ago> Finally, less than 5 percent of the people who chose to participate in this market research program were teens. All of them with signed parental consent forms. "Your honor, I swear! He clicked on the button saying he was over 18!!! How was my porn site supposed to know he was lying?" If Facebook wanted to do something useful, it could devote some of that $400 billion empire into identity verification and ways to prevent deceptive practices online. Something that goes beyond the Stone Age practices like SSN and Captchas that we rely on today.
- _bxg1 8y agoDisappointed to not see Apple putting their foot down more forcefully on this. It's possible they spoke to them, but there should be repercussions beyond just "shut down this one app". EDIT: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebooks-info-sucking-research-app https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebook...
- ardy42 8y agoFacebook has had its enterprise certificates revoked by Apple [1] https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebooks-info-sucking-research-app https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebook... > "Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple," Apple says. "Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data.” [1] I previously posted this development as a story, but it got flagged as a dupe. It seems like this is the more truthful angle. since Apple seems to be the real agent that caused this shutdown.
- bob_theslob646 8y agoIt is still available on Android.
- TwoNineA 8y agoEvery day I am happier having switched to iPhone after being an Android fanboy for ages.
- michaelmrose 8y agoYou could of course just continue not to install obvious spyware just like you presumably do on your desktop computer.
- sridca 8y agoBut that won't justify their newfound tech hate (this time on Google) ...
- radium3d 8y agoWhat is it called? I don't see it on the play store. I think I found it? Was it called onavo on Android? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onavo.spaceship https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onavo.spac...
- the_snooze 8y agoI've been reading a lot of comments about this, and something that always comes up is the question "why shouldn't people be able to sell their data?" I have two objections to that. First, they're almost certainly not making that deal from an informed position. Security and privacy are very complicated matters, and most people won't even realize to ask questions about data retention, aggregation, sharing, differential privacy, etc. Instead, they'll substitute in an easier more salient question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution), like "Is $20 a month something I want?" The second issue is that MITMing all network traffic on a phone will necessary scoop up the user's credentials, as well as private messages and metadata from that user's friends and family. It's naive to think about privacy as something an individual can accomplish. When you sell data from your networked social device (i.e., your phone), you're also selling out all your friends and family. Given all that really hot data, what incentives are there for the data collector to act responsibly and protect that data? The reality is pretty much none.
- bob_theslob646 8y ago"First, they're almost certainly not making that deal from an informed position" After spending an hour reading similar comments to yours, I have to ask this question. How informed should the user be? What qualifies as an informed user? This is getting into some dangerous territory because it because implies so some sort of contract literacy. >The second issue is that MITMing all network traffic on a phone will necessary scoop up the user's credentials, as well as private messages and metadata from that user's friends and family. Do they not already do that with access to Facebook Messenger and Instagram? Why is this not screamed from the top of every hill? This data collection is also different because they literally say it is for research.( They are protected legally, unfortunately) >Given all that really hot data, what incentives are there for the data collector to act responsibly and protect that data? Hmm how about getting fined?(The issue is how much should they be fined and the answer in my opinion should be similar to how the SEC prosecutes for insider trading: fine on top of whatever you made, to strongly discourage you from doing so again or jail them.
- gerash 8y ago
- quinceness 8y agoI wonder if google will do the same for their "install a VPN and app outside the app store to look at what people do" app: https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573890?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346 https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757389...
- mensetmanusman 8y agoF500 install certificates like this on their employee owned devices. If FB hires these people, is there a difference? Do you think a random admin assistant knows more than a techy teenager about the dangers of data privacy? Or is she just trying to scrape by for another week of rent? This sounds like alarm from the rich and well to do about an ‘immoral’ way for the poor to make money. Interesting nonetheless.
- rock_hard 8y agoSure hope Google will shut down theirs too...lol https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573812?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346 https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757381...
- colinprince 8y ago"Apple tells TechCrunch that yesterday evening it revoked the Enterprise Certificate that allows Facebook to distribute the Research app without going through the App Store." https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/
- ada1981 8y agoCould Apple just decide to block FB altogether? Could Google Play?
- throwawaymanbot 8y agoZuckerberg needs to step down as head honcho. This is only the stuff we are hearing about. Imagine what they are actually doing. This is just disgusting.