# Facebook collected data using a spy app they themselves banned...



## iamwhatiseem (Jun 13, 2019)

Can you say hypocrite? Or just not surprised at all what this shameless company does to it's robot users?

Facebook collected device data on 187,000 users using banned snooping app – TechCrunch

_Facebook  obtained personal and sensitive device data on about 187,000 users of its now-defunct Research app, which Apple banned earlier this year after the app violated its rules.

The social media giant said in a letter to Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s office — which TechCrunch obtained — that it collected data on 31,000 users in the U.S., including 4,300 teenagers. The rest of the collected data came from users in India._


----------



## Third Party (Jun 13, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Can you say hypocrite? Or just not surprised at all what this shameless company does to it's robot users?
> 
> Facebook collected device data on 187,000 users using banned snooping app – TechCrunch
> 
> ...


Most media is out of control at this point. Imagine the View running our government. To some extent, they do.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 13, 2019)

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER PRIVACY FIASCO AT FACEBOOK: What Did Zuckerberg Know and When Did He Know It?

Facebook is “worried” about emails which might link company founder/CEO Mark Zuckerberg to the company’s “questionable” privacy practices, according to a report on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal. That’s a bit like saying my wife is “aware” that I’ve been seen enjoying the “occasional” martini, but we’ll get back to that in a moment. First, a few details from that WSJ story.

According to “people familiar with the matter,” as they say, “the unearthing of the emails in the process of responding to a continuing federal privacy investigation has raised concerns that they would be harmful to Facebook — at least from a public-relations standpoint.” Facebook has since 2012 been operating under a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission regarding user privacy, but according to the WSJ’s unnamed sources, “Zuckerberg and other senior executives didn’t make compliance with the FTC order a priority.”

Ya think?​


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 13, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Can you say hypocrite? Or just not surprised at all what this shameless company does to it's robot users?
> 
> Facebook collected device data on 187,000 users using banned snooping app – TechCrunch
> 
> ...


That's one reason I don't have a Facebook account.....  Or a Twit-ter account......


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 13, 2019)

Ringel05 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Can you say hypocrite? Or just not surprised at all what this shameless company does to it's robot users?
> ...


Paranoia?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 13, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


No, stop projecting.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 13, 2019)

Ringel05 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


What data could they collect that you did not enter yourself?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 13, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Don't care since I refuse to have an account after a friend created an account eons ago and within a few days had a huge number of friend request from people he didn't know.  I don't have time to mess with that.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jun 14, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...



Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
 Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us". 
  Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jun 14, 2019)

The "Black Mirror" series on Netflix has an episode this season set just a few years into the future.
A man kidnaps someone and drives into an area that, he thinks, they can't find him. He meticulously hid his tracks etc.
  However, he had his cell phone with him.
Within no time the police knew who he was, where he was and a complete history on him. Photos/all of his social media posts etc. 
Then the FBI calls the local police and they all listen to the conversation he is having with the kidnapee via his cellphone. As well as listen to calls he is making, and start locating friends/relatives of his and looking at their online profiles etc. 
Naturally he is caught...well...actually shot dead.

  This scenario is 100% possible right now. All that is waiting is for a government to pass a law saying they can do it. And you can bet your ass most governments are already testing it and quite possibly black ops already can do it.

  this is what current data mining can do.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 14, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Yup!  Our Freedom and Liberty requires that we keep these companies in check.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 14, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 22, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse.  As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


And ‘the government’ is going to do what, exactly?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2019)

iamwhatiseem said:


> The "Black Mirror" series on Netflix has an episode this season set just a few years into the future.
> A man kidnaps someone and drives into an area that, he thinks, they can't find him. He meticulously hid his tracks etc.
> However, he had his cell phone with him.
> Within no time the police knew who he was, where he was and a complete history on him. Photos/all of his social media posts etc.
> ...


No, the _"Black Mirror"_ is a TV show – it’s fiction, which means it’s not real.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Actually not.

Only government can pose a threat to or freedom and liberty, not private entities such as social media sites.

The concepts of freedom and liberty concern solely the relationship between government and those governed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Correct.

And ‘the government’ cares even less.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 24, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 24, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


None of the pages I visit gets deleted.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Nonsense.   We decided long ago that ALL Americans have a right to enter the stores they chose, the seat they wish on the bus, the restroom facilities, the drinking fountains, the hotels/motels, airlines and so forth.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 24, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Not really.

The law is not clearly defined here as they do not fall under publisher as this site does not fall under publisher even if they control the discourse to an extent.  To be quite frank, they should be immune from publishers liability.  They do not publish the content.  If I call Trump a racist on FB, if you want them to be a publisher, then they would be liable for libel.  That is untenable and asinine.

The solution has always been pretty clear, stop using them.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality.  There are few people as arrogant as that.  You may even have exceeded Trump.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 24, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


That's Blei in a nutshell.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 24, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


When they were maintaining neutral programs, their sweetheart regulatory treatment made sense, now that they are partisan censorious hacks, it no longer does.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is in need of Congressional change now that these mega tech giants are censoring and excluding based on political viewpoint.

The law currently states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Section 230 requires neutrality from tech platforms as a predicate for immunity.

Senator Ted Cruz has said:

"The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum."​
The Communications Decency Act was a reaction to _Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co._, a landmark 1995 New York state court decision extending standards for liability, long imposed on publishers for their content, to new media.

Companies risk losing protection under Section 230 if they engage in censorious partisanship rather than provide neutral platform for lawful speech. 

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also pointed out that Twitter's censorious hard edge partisanship has jeopardized its immunity: "Twitter is exempt from liability as a 'publisher' because it is allegedly 'a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.' That does not appear to be accurate."

Section 230's first sentence eliminates liability for content uploaded to tech platforms. The _second_ sentence removes liability for tech companies' vile suppression of lawful political speech, that was NEVER the intention of Congress.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 24, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...


Ted Cruz may have stated that but it is not supported in the law unless you can point to the section that requires neutrality.  

There is a debate around changing it but I vehemently disagree with doing so - government is NOT the solution.  That is for another thread though.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 25, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


That's the point.  They are no longer a neutral platform, they are instead censorious hard edged partisans.  The sweetheart immunity deal that made sense 25 years ago, no longer does.

If they don't want to be neutral platforms, then they can have the same exposure as any other publication. At the time they were thought to be like a telephone service and of course no one has a political gateway to who can use the telephone and no one is preventing lawful speech on the telephone because they don't agree with it.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 25, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


That´s a stupid personal attack. If it´s true what you claim, why Trump, Assad, Maduro pages don´t get deleted?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 25, 2019)

Bleipriester said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


I made a statement of fact.  You countered it with your personal account of all of social media.

WTF did you expect - certainly not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 25, 2019)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


Nope. You are claiming something and there is a lack of examples backing your claim.


----------

