Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Cellphones Privacy Social Networks

Facebook Says It's Not Secretly Recording You (fb.com) 148

Posted by EditorDavid from the notifications dept.
An anonymous reader writes: In 2014 Facebook introduced a feature which can use your phone's microphone to identify songs you're listening to -- but "we don't record your conversations," they're reminding users. A mass communication professor at the University of South Florida tried discussing specific topics near her phone, then discovered Facebook appeared to be showing ads related to what she'd said. Though she wasn't convinced there was a link, the Independent newspaper reported that "The claim chimes with anecdotal reports online that the site appears to show ads for things that people have mentioned in passing."

An official statement Thursday reiterated that "Facebook does not use your phone's microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed." But another news site sees these concerns as a reminder of all the permissions users routinely grant to their apps. "Go into your phone's application settings and you'll see a whole list of what an app like Facebook has access to: your camera, your location, your contacts, and, yes, your microphone too. How about this for a warning? By downloading Facebook you give the app 'permission to record audio at any time without your confirmation.' Tom's Guide security editor Paul Wagenseil says Facebook can...listen to your conversations...but it would be illegal to do so."
Meanwhile, the FBI "can neither confirm nor deny" that it's ever tapped an Amazon Echo device.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Says It's Not Secretly Recording You More

Facebook Says It's Not Secretly Recording You

Comments Filter:

  • Uh-oh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:39PM (#52256061)

    "Can neither confirm nor deny" doesn't sound good.

    What's better than a geo-tracking device every citizen carries that also allows access to phone conversations, texts, and emails?

    An audio feed of everything that happens inside the citizen's house, that's what.

    Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

    • In the 60's spy spoof films starring James Coburn, one of the bad guy organizations was the ubiquitous Phone Company, and they could monitor everything near the old land lines that they owned and leased to every household, and were everywhere in public in the form of payphones. Ma Bell took on a Futurerama Mom like persona.

      • Ahh, yes. TPC (The Phone Company)...I remember it well.

      • In the 60's spy spoof films starring James Coburn, one of the bad guy organizations was the ubiquitous Phone Company

        I've not see the Flint films, but 'The President's Analyst' (which was also James Coburn) did exactly this.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )
      "Can neither confirm nor deny" is the standard answer when the question involves classified information. It means absolutely nothing.

    • Facebook corporate does not think of your data as belonging to you, it thinks of it as belonging to them. Your posts. Your photos. Your conversations. Whatever you allow its application to hoover. It is constantly changing and expanding the list of things it knows about you, and constantly changes your controls over how that list is filtered, so you have to be hyper-aware of how it is working, and take proactive steps repeatedly to have what little control over the reuse of your data they allow.

      Ultimately,

    • Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

      Are you sure? [cnn.com] (Thanks, Bruce.) Gamers often buy Vizio TVs [cnet.com], that seems like part of their latest shiny toy. (Vizio was one of the first to offer a super-low-latency no-processing mode.)

    • "Can neither confirm nor deny" doesn't sound good.

      What's better than a geo-tracking device every citizen carries that also allows access to phone conversations, texts, and emails?

      An audio feed of everything that happens inside the citizen's house, that's what.

      Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

      Remember, it's not secret if they tell you they can't deny it!

    • But - oh! - "privacy advocates have concern here."

  • if they managed to activate my mic trouch my noscript extenstion and without me installing the app, logging in, and their websites being filtered by my proxy.....

  • Oh sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:47PM (#52256083) Journal

    But...that's exactly what they'd say if they were secretly recording me, though.

    I mean, do you really think they'd come right out and say, "Yeah, we're secretly recording you"?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If they came right out and told us "we're secretly recording you," it wouldn't be a secret anymore. And thus their admission would become false. So they cannot honestly tell us that they're secretly recording us.

  • I believe them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Livius ( 318358 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:54PM (#52256107)

    I mean, come on, it's hardly a secret.

  • Complete lie and a distracting story (Score:5, Informative)

    by axewolf ( 4512747 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:54PM (#52256111)

    "Facebook is not recording you, it would be illegal to do so, so therefore they are not doing it!"
    How little self-respect you must have if you believe any such claim as this after the existence of mass surveillance has been revealed.

    All of these little stories, which are posted here almost every day, are meant to nibble away at your outrage and underhandedly restore your trust in the government by soothsaying.

    There is nothing mitigating the mass surveillance conspiracy. There are no checks or balances. As a society we looked at the evidence and did not act on it. There is no oversight.
    That means it's going ahead and expanding.

    There can be no freedom for people who are under total surveillance. It's life imprisonment. It's a hard and fast limit on your potential. Are you really content to have your own humanity and that of your children progressively reduced until there is nothing left? Most people are. If you're not, and you don't change your pattern of action radically, there will be no hope left for you or anyone else.

    • Re:Complete lie and a distracting story (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Sunday June 05, 2016 @08:50PM (#52256299)

      I used to object to the term "sheeple", which was usually applied to the majority of people who just can't be bothered to figure out how much of their private lives they're giving away (and the private lives of their friends, relatives and children, too) in return for some shiny, useless app.

      I was wrong. "Sheeple" describes these people well. My major concern now is that their actions have endangered my privacy and freedom, as well as the privacy and freedom of those I care about.

      • Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.

        A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.

        Baaaaah.

        • Every time I see a great clips I think shearing the sheeple.

        • Sheeple implies thoughtless, uncritical people. The ones unlikely to rtfa, where the prof says she doesn't think what she reported is actually happening.

          A website with one billion active users will get a coindidence like the reported anecdotes from time to time. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to following the Sheeple path and not thinking this through.

          Baaaaah.

          Really; what are the chances that from following somebody's web browsing, you will discover information similar to what you might discover by listening to them?

        • The overall point applies. Or, in the language you understand so well, "Baaaaaaaaaaaa".

    • It is hard for me to believe that they would use 24/7 speech recognition for opted in devices. It is far easier that they might enable shazam like audio recognition to identity music and shows.

      And the evidence reads like a professor who misuses statistics. Ask for a jeep and get car adverts? That's the worst targeted advertising ever, she should have seen jeep ads.

      Also, the feed is known not to be in chrono order, so at best we have a coincidence that she decided to test this idea on a story that was alread

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jafiwam ( 310805 )

      Not "recording" as in " keeping a copy"

      But, monitoring what's going on by streaming sounds picked up by the microphone? Sure! That's not "recording"!

  • Nobody has the intention to build a wall (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @07:55PM (#52256123)

    Man, facebook is working really hard at becoming the most evil company. Microsoft, your title is in danger!

    • At this point, even if Microsoft and Google were to somehow join forces the new entity wouldn't be anywhere as evil as Facebook.

    • Don't forget Zynga.

      • Zynga is only a danger to its own employees, indie developers who make ripoff-worthy games, and people who can voluntarily trap themselves in a Skinner box.

    • Microsoft, your title is in danger!

      When Facebook nukes my computer, then Microsoft is in danger. At the moment Facebook is a long way behind.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DeVilla ( 4563 )

      Don't worry. I'm sure Windows 12 can access your microphone too. I haven't heard Microsoft deny using it, but I'm sure they would if you'd only ask.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasch ( 598556 )

      There are so many companies more evil than Microsoft...

  • apart from privacy aspect, there is a property ownership aspect to facebok's use of information about users.

    facebook ( and google and other so called social media) are primarily ad sellers.
    they sell ads with help of content created by users for users(themselves and others), which is different from say tv or newspapers which create/buy content to sell ads.
    shouldn't users have a right to monetize the content that is being used by facebook etc? shouldn't they have a cut from ad revenue same way tv program makers or reporters for newspapers?

    and shouldn't users have right not to sell money making content, which is their property, without receiving payment?

    while how courts will view the privacy concerns of users are uncertain, i think law will come on the side of users on the ownership of their property in the end.

    few years down the road, facebook and google or their successors probably will end up with very thin margins.

  • "We can do that - but it would be wrong." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @08:12PM (#52256183)

    Those of us of a certain age remember that phrase well.

    But if you've explicitly granted permission for Facebook to record audio from your device, at any time, without notification -- in what sense would it be "illegal" for them to do so?

    • if you've explicitly granted permission for Facebook to record audio from your device, at any time, without notification -- in what sense would it be "illegal" for them to do so?

      The idea is that no contract can be against the law. But the point assumes there is a law against recording you, and I do not see which one it is.

    • I'm thinking it would depend on the country. In the US, it would probably not be illegal in any sense. Privacy is completely upside down there. In Canada, it might be a different story. Companies are only allowed to collect private information with your explicit agreement, and only for the purposes for which permission was given.

  • ...or at least as much as an iron grip as Apple allows me.

    But I tell ya what -- Facetwat is not on my phone. (yes, Facetwat is my derisive mashup of Facebook and Twitter.) And no, Twitter isn't on my phone. Neither is Tinder, or Snapchat or whatnot. You wanna reach me? Email me. Text me. iMessage me. Or fucking call me.

    I honestly think Facetwat is a front for the NSA / FBI. Call be paranoid, call me whack-job, but Facetwat just seems too goddamned convenient.

    And for the curious, this post was indeed

    • I honestly think Facetwat is a front for the NSA / FBI. Call be paranoid, call me whack-job

      I'll just call you ignorant. A lot of Facebook's funding came from the CIA. In contrast, the NSA and Google have a revolving door for new hires. Look up inter-agency rivalry some time.

  • Meh. This is a surprise? (Score:3)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Sunday June 05, 2016 @08:24PM (#52256221)

    Who here installs such an app and simply takes the default permissions? Well, probably not anyone that reads Slashdot. And the other Facebook users? they don't care.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasch ( 598556 )

      On android previous to version 6 (ie most devices) it is all or nothing unless you jump through some hoops including rooting. So I'd say even on /. probably a lot of people install an app and take the default permissions.

  • "I did not brush my ass with your toothbrush.." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by willworkforbeer ( 924558 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @08:26PM (#52256227)
    "every night, while you were sleeping"

  • Of course they don't (Score:3)

    by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @08:29PM (#52256231)

    They probably use some text to speech algorithm first, and then feed their massive insane AI with the data that uses it to determine things like if the person is a victim/perpetrator to ring a phone somewhere with cryptic words, or the brand of toothpaste the person use or usually both.

  • Just because a certain employee of a certain company keeps asking you to use his underage prostitutes as carriers for the drugs he keeps buying from you, doesn't mean that you have to be so paranoid as to think that he is using his company's app's ability to listen to the sounds you make (in order to cut you out as a middle man in this cocaine transaction). It simply doesn't follow. It may be true. But you don't have to be so cynical as to believe that it is true.
  • Facebook says it's not using your microphone to inform ads or to change your News feed. It says nothing whatsoever about recording you. This is the classic non-denial denial.

  • Not secretly. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Like they said. They're not *secretly* doing it.
    It's all in the EULA

    • Like they said. They're not *secretly* doing it. It's all in the EULA

      I used to start all my programs with a comment "Guaranteed to have no undetectable bugs"

  • "...By downloading Facebook you give the app 'permission to record audio at any time without your confirmation.' Tom's Guide security editor Paul Wagenseil says Facebook can...listen to your conversations...but it would be illegal to do so."

    OK, first of all, this statement seems to contradict itself. IANAL, but if you give permission, chances are it's legal in many circumstances.

    That said, what the hell does legality have to do with mega-corps today? Do you honestly think you have a chance in hell against them in court? Do you think they already know your chance when they skirt or blatantly ignore the law?

    Facebook knows the power and control they wield, even over lawmakers. Death and taxes? Yeah, seems the too-big-to-fail social media mas

  • It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

    • It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

      Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.

      • It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

        Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.

        "Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company created a popular flashlight app for Android devices that the FTC charged deceived consumers with a privacy policy that did not reflect the app’s use of personal data and presented consumers with a false choice on whether to share their information." https://www.ftc.gov/news-e [ftc.gov]

        • "Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl.

          Too bad it didn't include some time in a Max security prison.

  • If we told you, it wouldn't be a secret.

    I can't believe anyone trusts Facebook.

  • Post about Windows 10 and it is endless streams of "oh my god the evilz!"

    Yea, yea, the privacy train has left, you have to be a virtual luddite to have even the hope of privacy in 2016..

    Those people clinging to Windows 7 out of the delusion that they are secure and "private" are just kidding themselves.

    Microsoft is late to this game and is only doing stuff that others have done for some time.

    ---

    Note: That doesn't make what Microsoft does "right", it just makes it the same as everyone else.

    • It makes Microsoft exactly the same as everyone else, but late as usual.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Etcetera ( 14711 )

      Yea, this boggles my mind somewhat. I realize M$ is always a worthy target, but "privacy" means something very different now that there are orders of magnitudes more devices present in our lives with microphones and sensors than it did in 1995 when you were lucky if your lone work PC recognized your SoundBlaster card at all.

      Railing against W10 is meaningless. You want to protest unnecessary telemetry and data collection, storage, and evaluation, it's Google (read: Alphabet) and Facebook you should be worrie

    • Post about Windows 10 and it is endless streams of "oh my god the evilz!"

      Yea, yea, the privacy train has left, you have to be a virtual luddite to have even the hope of privacy in 2016..

      Those people clinging to Windows 7 out of the delusion that they are secure and "private" are just kidding themselves.

      Microsoft is late to this game and is only doing stuff that others have done for some time.

      ---

      Note: That doesn't make what Microsoft does "right", it just makes it the same as everyone else.

      That's why I use "burner" laptops and throw them away after every use.

  • This is exactly one of the reasons... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zuki ( 845560 ) on Sunday June 05, 2016 @09:49PM (#52256541) Journal
    ...why I do not currently have it installed on my mobile device.

    I found their mobile app to be so intrusive, I uninstalled it after a day of trying it out. The cherry on the cake was that of course, you can't even turn the freaking thing off, which is what I had first tried to do unsuccessfully. Only by going online and searching for this did the bleak reality of it become apparent.

    You might call me naive, but I had never come across an app that you can't turn off. The only way to stop it is to deinstall it altogether and wipe the cached data. I guess it must have been determined to be a good feature in order to 'maximize shareholder value' ? Because obviously it's not the sort of thing that can just happen by accident.

    So given this heavy-handed approach I wouldn't call it far-fetched in the least that they would decide to parse audio in order to squeeze in contextual advertising.

    Meantime, this really brings back on the table the greater issue which is: why are people falling for this free service when they are giving so much more value with all of their personal data than what it would cost as a subscription service of say.... $3 a month or less. I hope that a credible open-source alternative does surface that can perform most of the same functions without the 'walled garden' and incredibly pushy approach they are increasingly taking, not to say anything of their arbitrary algorithmic censorship and heavy-handed monetizing initiatives.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I hope that a credible open-source alternative does surface that can perform most of the same functions without the 'walled garden' and incredibly pushy approach they are increasingly taking, not to say anything of their arbitrary algorithmic censorship and heavy-handed monetizing initiatives.

      The tech is already there [elgg.org]. You can build a social network to call your own. Now it's up to you to find an audience. Good luck!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

      This makes me glad I use a phone made by a company that puts me before the developer. I have never given camera or mic permissions to the Facebook app, and I don't intend to do so now.

    • I found their mobile app to be so intrusive, I uninstalled it after a day of trying it out.

      Exactly. I rarely use Facebook, but I do have an account mostly to monitor what other people may say and do regarding me. (Otherwise, for example, people would take photos of me and post them online anyway -- this way at least I can see a lot of them when they tag me and know what's going on.)

      Anyhow, a few years ago I did post very occasionally and I started to check in a little more frequently (maybe even every day or so). When I got a new tablet, I thought -- hmm, maybe I'll install the Facebook app.

    • Or maybe you just didn't notice, but in its early days the facebook app did bad things to a bunch of people's contacts. I can't remember if it just deleted all the ones that didn't have a facebook account from your phone (which is how I remember it) or something more evil, but it's been garbage since always and while I commend you for removing it quickly, it's always appalled me that people were willing to install a facebook app on their phones at all when their phones already included web browsers and fb w

  • In other words "read the EULA", there's nothing "secret" about the recording.

  • Whatever, Skynet.

  • It now sends you a reassuring message telling you it's not recording you when it hears you talking to your friends about the Facebook recording feature.

  • Officially Old (Score:3)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Monday June 06, 2016 @08:17AM (#52258417)
    I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home.

    Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.

    • I am now officially a curmudgeon, as I cannot understand why anyone would willingly have something like an Echo in their home. Hey, cats: stop belling yourself.

      Recall the old saying, "No man is a hero to his butler".
      if you want something that really responds to your every need, even before you need it, then it has to know a whole lot of stuff about you and about what you are doing at any given time. Until the individual device has enough processing power to keep all that data local and analyze it, it has to be uploaded en masse. And of course, that makes it salable.

  • The damn wording on the permissions is set by Google, not by Facebook. They're ominous sounding because they cite the most extreme cases that the devices *could* be used for, so that people don't come crying later when things are used in ways that weren't expected. Lastly, the giant list of permissions set by the FB apps really don't go out of line with everything the apps do. Want to be able to take pictures and videos from the app? There's your camera permission (and by extension, I believe, the micro

  • Oh, the naivete of people who think that clicking on a little picture somewhere that changes from "ON" to "OFF" actually does what it says it does.

  • Root + Exposed framework + CameraLess = cool control over cameras / convert smartphone to dumphone. I guess there is a similar app for the microphone as well

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close