The New York Times Claims Facebook Shared More Data Than it Disclosed

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by AlphaAtlas, Dec 19, 2018.

  1. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,713
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    The New York Times just published a scathing report on Facebook's data sharing practices. Citing over 60 interviews and "hundreds of pages of Facebook documents obtained by The New York Times, generated in 2017 by the company's internal system for tracking partnerships," the publication claims that Facebook shared far more data than they've disclosed. Among other things, Facebook "allowed Microsoft's Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users' friends without consent," and "gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users' private messages." Amazon was given contact information through friends lists, while Yahoo was allegedly viewing friends' posts after Facebook promised "it had stopped that type of sharing." The report goes on an on, listing multiple ways Facebook violated their users' privacy and possibly ran afoul of regulations, but notes that the U.S. "has no general consumer privacy law, leaving tech companies free to monetize most kinds of personal information as long as they don't mislead their users."

    How closely Facebook monitored its data partners is uncertain. Most of Facebook"s partners declined to discuss what kind of reviews or audits Facebook subjected them to. Two former Facebook partners, whose deals with the social network dated to 2010, said they could find no evidence that Facebook had ever audited them. One was BlackBerry. The other was Yandex. Facebook officials said that while the social network audited partners only rarely, it managed them closely. "These were high-touch relationships," Mr. Satterfield said.
     
  2. WBurchnall

    WBurchnall 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,617
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Amazing what a terms of service agreement allows a website to get away with these days. It's a shame half the people in congress are too old to have grown up with computers and won't understand the technical words contained in the article to do anything about it.
     
  3. Poseidons Kiss

    Poseidons Kiss n00b

    Messages:
    30
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    It's pretty easy to mislead users when privacy terms, agreements, and controls are constantly shifting and laced with legalese.
     
  4. katanaD

    katanaD [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,987
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    what really makes me chuckle is that people are still surprised that a company whose entire basis for being IS.. information sharing.. was sharing information

    :rolleyes:
     
    Bigshrimp, Aireoth and Madoc like this.
  5. Gigantopithecus

    Gigantopithecus [H]ardOCP Case Reviewer

    Messages:
    1,364
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    If you haven't nuked your Facebook account by now, what might it take for you to do so??
     
    WBurchnall, {NG}Fidel and Compddd like this.
  6. ir0nw0lf

    ir0nw0lf [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,319
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Obligatory pic is obligatory. :LOL:
    im_shocked.gif
     
    Bigshrimp and piscian18 like this.
  7. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,500
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    NY Times... Fake news!

    Journalists are the enemies of good citizens.

    OK, OK. Honestly, though... Does anyone believe anything the sociopaths at Facebook say?
     
    Compddd likes this.
  8. gxp500

    gxp500 Gawd

    Messages:
    865
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Doubt the general public actually care about this.
     
    Bigshrimp and steakman1971 like this.
  9. Rahh

    Rahh [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,607
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Exactly!
     
  10. NeghVar

    NeghVar 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,445
    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    And if they get fined for any of this, the fine is probably nothing compared to the revenue generated by it. Thus no incentive to cease operations. Just add in the fine as an operations cost.

    The privacy policy link is more accurately an anti-privacy policy link.
     
    WBurchnall likes this.
  11. PeaKr

    PeaKr Gawd

    Messages:
    724
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    lol, lefties going after fb cause they got busted helping the righties.
     
  12. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    FFS..... FB, the company the right accusing of being extremely biased towards the left and attacking their 1A rights by filtering conservative news/opinions, even though 1A doesn't have any application in this scenario. But sure, it must be the left going after them now for helping the right..... This couldn't possibly be a bipartisan issue that affects everyone.....
     
    Blown Cap, {NG}Fidel and SamuelL421 like this.
  13. piscian18

    piscian18 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,021
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005

    An alternative platform I could use to stay in contact with my 50-60 close relatives who exclusively use facebook and post family updates there.
     
  14. PeaKr

    PeaKr Gawd

    Messages:
    724
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    It is bi-partisan, however, its common knowledge social media/google mostly censor the right, been going on for years. Now all a sudden Cambridge Analytica and everyone's investigating FB, DC filed suit today. Where were they back in 08-16? No one gaf that's where.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  15. Danny Dawg

    Danny Dawg [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Chase that $$ Mark . . ..chase that $$.
     
  16. SamuelL421

    SamuelL421 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    164
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2016
    Information privacy and underhanded use of personal data affects everyone.

    The topic of censorship is unrelated. Facebook is a private company, they are free to set their own terms of service / content standards that ban garbage like hate speech, propaganda, fake news, junk science, etc. The people pissing and moaning about 1st amendment rights fail to understand how that only applies in reference to government.

    The issue at hand is how Facebook was sharing more details and data to more people than was disclosed in any of their agreements or communications to their users. That the data was used by marketing firms in an attempt to influence elections also pisses people off, but again misses the point. The bottom line is that companies with our data should not be able to share or sell that private information without disclosing it and (ideally) giving us a chance to remove said information or opt out.
     
  17. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,908
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    How long till people get it through their heads, if they aren't paying for something (and now even if they are many times) they ARE the product.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  18. PeaKr

    PeaKr Gawd

    Messages:
    724
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Censorship does apply to my point, which you missed btw. You state fb is private so 1st doesn't apply. I never said it did. You also say they shouldn't be allowed to share your data, maybe you should read their tos.
     
  19. {NG}Fidel

    {NG}Fidel [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,287
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Already did. They really don't give a shit about users beyond cash.
    They don't care what they do.
    Good job on the New York Times for the reporting. Should increase pressure as awareness spreads.
     
    Gigantopithecus likes this.
  20. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,510
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    political opinion into anything is a waste of time.

    meh i only log into mine once a month so my family thinks i give a crap about them(which i really don't). fk social media..
     
  21. McCartney

    McCartney Gawd

    Messages:
    861
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
  22. lostin3d

    lostin3d [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,038
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
  23. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,513
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Anyone that is surprised that FB is sharing every detail about users, user's friends, user's enemies, and everyone that user's don't know hasn't been paying attention.

    Just sold a house. The complete pile of paperwork I signed and initialed in that process is easily dwarfed by the mountain of legalese I had to click to agree to install an OS, patches, browser, Anti-malware, drivers, hardware, extensions and then further agree to the same on every website I visit. Any Legi-critter at either Federal or State level that thinks the average citizen has time to read all of the crap citizens are forced to agree to before using any modern communications device has self identified themselves as so out of touch with reality that they should self admit to a mental institution. And that is before all of the "We can change any and all of this agreement at any time, please check the following website..." language most EULA, TOS, PP include.