Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not.

My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build unethical technology, while the competitors have a harder time doing the same. This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs.” Meanwhile, the more conscientious programmers and entrepreneurs (or at least those held more accountable) are busy wrangling with the real challenges and intricacies of civilization. (I personally prefer it that way - I like my work being tied to the well-being of society.)

What is this describing? First-party apps with Facebook integration and/or OS features connecting to Facebook? The leakage of Facebook information onto MS/Apple/Blackberry servers would be concerning, but having Microsoft software connect to Facebook on a user's device sounds harmless (to the extent we trust MS/Apple/Blackberry software to not leak information so accessed). Right now I'm giving Apple similar access to every single communication I make through my computer, to my bank accounts and health records, to all the work I do for my employer.

This distinction wasn't made clear in the story (or I can't read) and it's an important one. Privacy is complicated enough already.

This and the discussion here is obnoxiously bad. Facebook gave some device makers special APIs to access authorized data. This is literally no different than a web API or scraping facebook HTML, just more streamlined. What you guys seem to be objecting to is that non-facebook code was able to interact with authorized user data. But that is a necessary feature of displaying data of any kind (unless facebook owns the entire software stack). This is a non-story.

And HN's facebook derangement syndrome continues.

Response from FB: "Why We Disagree with the NYT" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...

>The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014, spreading user data through tens of millions of mobile devices, game consoles, televisions and other systems outside Facebook’s direct control.

So Facebook says "we don't sell data," but they are giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device. How is that not "selling" data? Just because they aren't receiving cash?

Having read (been warned) "Chaos Monkeys" and "Dragnet Nation" this comes as no surprise.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/revi...

https://www.npr.org/books/titles/281981849/dragnet-nation-a-...

Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along.

Given the book review (link) above, it's as if they don't read their own publication. If I have to connect the dots myself then I'm going to stop reading - which I essentially did, many years ago.

That said, SV has become the ultimate cult / religion. All those followers and zero heretics (i.e., whistleblowers). The irony that so many of the faithful champion the likes of Snowden et al is as funny as it is frightening.

Facebook's old policy: Move fast and break things.

Facebook's new policy: Move fast and deny everything.

I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. It seems a new strategy is in place, to not let these article fester. The problem is their response is devoid of actual content, or even actual rebuttals to the main points of the NYT article. Mainly that FB does not consider these vendors as "third-parties", and that friends data is accessed even when sharing is explicitly disabled.

Here we go again... it feel like there's no way to break out of this cycle where companies routinely go unpunished for bad behavior. Facebook, Equifax, Wells Fargo...

It seems a lot of these tech companies' competitive edge is to ignore regulations and rules (other examples: Uber, AirBNB) to grow a massive user base 100x faster, as they hold onto the "scrappy startup" image.

Once they have achieved their scale and network effects, they can just promise changes and do an apology tour in response to any regulatory or public backlash after it happens.

Nothing will change Facebook's behavior except heavy regulation or the threat of a breakup.

This appears to be an API to integrate Facebook chrome and functionality into a mobile OS UI;

> “An Apple spokesman said the company relied on private access to Facebook data for features that enabled users to post photos to the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things. Apple said its phones no longer had such access to Facebook as of last September.

...

> Usher Lieberman, a BlackBerry spokesman, said in a statement that the company used Facebook data only to give its own customers access to their Facebook networks and messages. Mr. Lieberman said that the company “did not collect or mine the Facebook data of our customers,” adding that “BlackBerry has always been in the business of protecting, not monetizing, customer data.”

> Microsoft entered a partnership with Facebook in 2008 that allowed Microsoft-powered devices to do things like add contacts and friends and receive notifications, according to a spokesman. He added that the data was stored locally on the phone and was not synced to Microsoft’s servers.”

The story recounts how the BlackBerry Facebook view could... not surprisingly in any way... render your Facebook friends’ information which you are supposed to be able to access.

But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way.

> “The Hub also requested — and received — data that Facebook’s policy appears to prohibit. Since 2015, Facebook has said that apps can request only the names of friends using the same app. But the BlackBerry app had access to all of the reporter’s Facebook friends and, for most of them, returned information such as user ID, birthday, work and education history and whether they were currently online.

> The BlackBerry device was also able to retrieve identifying information for nearly 295,000 Facebook users. Most of them were second-degree Facebook friends of the reporter, or friends of friends.”

...How the hell else do you suppose the UI was rendering your Facebook Feed?! Maybe they thought BlackBerry used magic unicorns to render the Facebook UI components on their Hub view.

If only there was a term to describe when media sites write a non-story to stir up fake controversy by smearing a popular target...

"Facebook Gave..."

Well, that's like problem number 15. Number one is to look at what you're giving to facebook.

Number 2 is to look at how much control you have over the intimacy of your own life and those around you, using or not.

Number 3 might be to look at how many phones/devices you can root, rip and reset (I mean, c'mon, the personal data sink on a phone is enormous and most have little to no say about what can be on it and when much less port and comms control).

Number 4 is maybe that any middlin' IQ ass with a badge or a note with some letterhead can scoop your kit. (See Number 1.)

Number 5 - Who makes the rules? (Don't think too hard on it, please.)

Et cetera.

Facebook is easy. Fasebook is sleezy. Facebook is free. So? I think I'll trust my peers well before I trust any piece of must-have with a logo that gives you only tactile controls, at best. The masses do not choose wisely. (See Number 5.)

If you do the sharing then you need to do the caring. Button it up and bring it down. Believe it or not your likes are your own and if you don't like what they're doing now then shut it down. I know it's easier said than done for some but the keys to the kingdom are in corporate hands now. Good luck.

Well, if you want to have your social network app preinstalled on a lot of phones, I guess there's either paying for it or offering up your users.

iPhone doesn't have it preinstalled, no, but if memory serves, there were integrations built in. At least for a while.

Why would they need this data though, really? Once you've bought the device, they could get at the interesting data outright if so inclined?

I would love to see someone with an old BlackBerry write up whether this uses a unique endpoint (different from public api) especially to see if it would be possible to 'spoof' a BB device to get the data.

Can't wait the apology commercial.

The first 500M Facebook users were signing up for "the graph".

The NY Times piece even goes so far as to illustrate this in diagrams.

The graph was a phone book replacement... "white pages" for the Internet.

It was only when public discourse on FB pivoted to religion and politics; both very private and personal topics; that sentiment pivoted towards privacy... and removing themselves from discoverability on the graph.

"The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014"

"Michael LaForgia, a New York Times reporter, used the Hub app on a BlackBerry Z10 to log into Facebook." -- this is a phone announced in 2013.

I understand the concern with Facebook, but this article is presenting information from 4 years ago as if it's news.

> "In interviews, Facebook officials defended the data sharing as consistent with its privacy policies..."

Facebook's EULA pretty much gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the data you've provided them. Of course, who actually reads EULAs or cares about privacy anymore?

Alternatively worded: Facebook let RIM build Facebook for Blackberry.

undefined

This paints Facebook’s recent marketing campaign in a new light. Here I was thinking we were dealing with a company finally that decided to get their act together and turn themselves around, when in reality it was actually just Facebook trying to whitewash their reputation ahead of all the horrible abuses they knew were about to be exposed.

just switch out of FB. you dont have to quit social media just find a more suitable network (I personally like ello). the crux of the issue is that they know they are a monopoly and wallstreet knows that too so these things will continue until there is a moderating force like people leaving. otherwise I doubt there'll be much happening to rectify these issues for they are the core of their business model not some happenstance things.

btw mozilla created a FB jail thats fully open-sourced a few months ago. use that on FF and it should alleviate some desktop tracking. access here:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/

Worked at an OEM. We preloaded Facebook apps in our phones in exchange for user data. I can't provide more information on how the data was used but I would trust Facebook on this case.

undefined

Shooooooooocking. This getting pathetic. Personally I am using Facebook less and less and attempting to block it as much as possible.

undefined

At which point can facebook start suing around for [slander/damages]? It's not like they did all this in secrecy , they were quite open about their platform with developers (which has helped developers warm up to a company that basically sells gossip). They never will of course, because they 'd be retroactively judged with today's standards. E.g. I find their unfair advantaging of the Obama campaigns a lot more troubling than this.

I mocked up a new Facebook apology ad: https://i.imgur.com/EWDJjwx.jpg

Let me know if marketing wants to license it.

When is Facebook giving full disclosure? Why do we have to find out like this? Facebook knows exactly which entities have been harvesting data. Just tell us already...

I for one do not expect Facebook to change much unless there's a big shakeup from the top, including removing Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and others. What they have shown repeatedly is contempt for their users in the guise of apologies and remediations that go nowhere. Since such a shakeup is unlikely to happen, the other thing that could happen is a breaking up of the company, which I'm guessing (this is not a prediction) will happen in a couple of years. To start with, Instagram and WhatsApp would have to get unwound from this mess by becoming individual and unrelated services.

I don't have a lot of hope on social media platforms respecting user privacy and avoid massive data collection and/or sharing. Privacy in today's world is for the privileged people, in various ways.

Stop using Facebook already ... it's a liar and deceiving social network.

they haven't changed. they will not change. why should they change. this is their normal. they are rotten to the core.

Why this is shocking, or even news?

When you create and use a Facebook account (or when a shadow profile is created for you), Facebook has (and has always had) the right to share anything and everything you publish on their platform with anyone they have a legal responsibility to (e.g., law enforcement) or commercial agreement with (e.g., advertisers).

All Facebook content is essentially public and should be treated as such.

Now read this and do make sure you type the takeaways like you did for the NYTimes article above: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...