View profile

Big Revolution - Facebook vs The New York Times

Revue
 
Welcome to today's Big Revolution. Today I go on a bit of a rant about an alarming, vague, and alarmi
 
June 4 · Issue #99 · View online
Big Revolution
Welcome to today’s Big Revolution. Today I go on a bit of a rant about an alarming, vague, and alarmingly vague bit of tech journalism. Read on!
Martin

Big things you need to know today
- Microsoft is reportedly set to announce it has bought GitHub, the code-sharing platform for developers. Bloomberg says it could be made official as soon as today. This news is a massive deal as it puts Microsoft right at the centre of the open source movement, a field of software development it once saw as a threat to its core business.
- The New York Times is going in hard against Facebook with a story that says the social network’s relationships with device manufacturers may have breached user privacy. As I see it, there’s not much of a story here – more on that below.
- Apple’s WWDC keynote is today at 6pm UK, 7pm CEST, 10am West Coast US, 1pm East Coast US. You can watch it live on Apple’s website via the Safari browser on an iOS, Mac or Windows device.
The big thought
Credit: Tim Bennett on Unsplash
Facebook vs The New York Times
The tech press world is abuzz with chatter about The New York Times’ big story today about how “Facebook gave device makers deep access to data on users and friends.”
It’s not a trendy thing to do, but I’m going to back Facebook up on this one. 
What the story is talking about is operating system-level Facebook integration – something most smartphones had for most of the past decade, but is now being phased out. You know the idea – log into Facebook in your phone’s settings and you get things like your friends’ photos pop up in your phone address book, or the ability to easily share a photo to Facebook from your camera roll.
Here’s the nub, per the NYT:
“The partnerships, whose scope has not previously been reported, raise concerns about the company’s privacy protections and compliance with a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission. Facebook allowed the device companies access to the data of users’ friends without their explicit consent, even after declaring that it would no longer share such information with outsiders. Some device makers could retrieve personal information even from users’ friends who believed they had barred any sharing, The New York Times found.”
This happened in plain sight for years – seriously, anyone who thought about it for five seconds, including regulators, would have realised that Facebook data would be stored on a user’s phone and potentially in the phone manufacturer’s cloud too.
The NYT goes on to make it sound like something bad was happening behind users’ backs:
“The Times found: They can obtain data about a user’s Facebook friends, even those who have denied Facebook permission to share information with any third parties.”
But unless there’s been a breach of the manufacturers’ contracts with Facebook (and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that) the data is used on an individual’s phone to integrate their Facebook account with phone features - not given to device manufacturers to keep copies of for other uses. The ‘third party’ is probably just 'your Facebook friend’s phone.’
If that was happening, I would see the scandal, but there’s no evidence it was.
There may technically be some breaches of law in some jurisdictions here (I’m no lawyer), based on where the data was stored, but there’s not really much to it beyond that. As Facebook’s response to the story says:
“Given that these APIs enabled other companies to recreate the Facebook experience, we controlled them tightly from the get-go. These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences. Partners could not integrate the user’s Facebook features with their devices without the user’s permission. 
And our partnership and engineering teams approved the Facebook experiences these companies built. Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends. We are not aware of any abuse by these companies.”
It’s essential for the media to keep a close eye on what a company like Facebook gets up to, given the vast influence it has on our lives. But confusing the public with a story that relies on a vague definition of what is and isn’t a 'third-party,’ and lacks evidence to support the suggestion that anything has actually gone wrong, helps no-one.
One big read
How private are your Ancestry DNA genetic testing results? How private are your Ancestry DNA genetic testing results?
Digital data breaches are one thing, but what about our chemical data? This article takes a look at a very different – but sometimes more important – kind of data protection.
One big tweet
A little bit of Twitter fame doesn’t always lead to bigger things…
David Banks
This is an interesting illustration of the effect of a tweet. 400k impressions results in 600 clicks on my profile, which results in how many visits to my website - where I really get business? Two. Hello both of you.
7:53 PM - 3 Jun 2018
That’s all for today...
Don’t forget, if you’d like to support Big Revolution, you can choose to become a member for $5 per month. It’s like buying me a coffee every month for sending you these packed emails every day.
Just hit the ‘become a member’ button below. Thank you!
Did you enjoy this issue?
 
Become a member for $5 per month
Don’t miss out on the other issues by Martin SFP Bryant
You can manage your subscription here
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here
Powered by Revue