Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Bug Privacy The Internet IT

Facebook Bug Has Camera Activated While People Are Using the App (cnet.com) 92

Posted by msmash from the of-course dept.
When you're scrolling through Facebook's app, the social network could be watching you back, in more ways than just your data, concerned users have found. Multiple people have found and reported that their iPhone cameras were turned on in the background while looking at their feed. From a report: The issue came to light with several posts on Twitter, showing that their cameras were activated behind Facebook's app as they were watching videos or looking at photos on the social network. After clicking on the video to full screen, returning it back to normal would create a bug where Facebook's mobile layout was slightly shifted to the right. With the open space on the left, you could now see the phone's camera activated in the background. This was documented in multiple cases, with the earliest incident on November 2.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Bug Has Camera Activated While People Are Using the App More

Facebook Bug Has Camera Activated While People Are Using the App

Comments Filter:

  • Features and bugs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @12:52PM (#59407044)
    This is definitely a feature.

  • Facebook doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mangastudent ( 718064 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @12:54PM (#59407046)

    So calling this a bug is a bit optimistic.

    On the other hand, they have only so much disk space in which to store video; if this is not an accident we could tell if they just keep a frame every second or three.

    • Re:Facebook doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:53PM (#59407282) Homepage

      Doesn't matter. If they've recorded a single underage person naked then they ought to be in deep shit because of this.

      As in Jail-time shit, the sort of shit you or I would be in if we installed spyware on a phone to record people.

      No doubt Zuck will grease a few palms and get away with it though.

      • Doesn't matter. If they've recorded a single underage person naked then they ought to be in deep shit because of this.

        How are you disagreeing with me?? As for the point you make above ... it might take a forensic audit of their systems to distinguish between all the underage people putting their naked pictures and video on Facebook and Facebook doing that deliberately or accidentally, unless they've got some serious AI disposing of the former as soon as it's uploaded.

        • And what about those adult Facebook users who use the site as a means of dating. It's one thing when your correspondence is considered safe and quite another when outsiders take you to the camera while flirting. It seems to me that the increase in the number of scandals with the invasion of private life will lead to the rejection of any social networks. In the end, just click for info [escorts2.com] to find a good company among the escort. A little more and people will prefer real communication to their favorite sites.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Doesn't matter. If they've recorded a single underage person naked then they ought to be in deep shit because of this.

        Why underage? Why not any age person? Same invasion of privacy.

    • Re:Facebook doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chromal ( 56550 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @02:16PM (#59407364)
      Calling it a bug would seem insulting to one's intelligence, given Zuckerberg's and Facebook's status as a serial privacy offender. So, what could this be? Well, here's one possibility that slots in nicely with the aiding and abetting of psychological warfare and political gaslighting outfits in their attacks upon liberal democratic systems, attacks perpetuated by the likes Cambridge Analytica: "Researchers have long been interested in finding out whether machines can identify emotion from still images or video footage. But it is only relatively recently that a number of startups have sprung up to take this technology mainstream. The recent study tested commercial facial recognition machine classifiers developed by Affectiva, CrowdEmotion, FaceVideo, Emotient, Microsoft, MorphCast, Neurodatalab, VicarVision, and VisageTechnologies. All of these are leaders in the growing field of affective computing, a.k.a. teaching computers to recognize emotions... “Since machine learning systems are becoming easier to develop, a lot of companies are now providing systems for other companies: mainly marketing and automotive companies..." ( https://www.digitaltrends.com/... [digitaltrends.com] )
      • It was merely a bug. It was unintentional that the layout bug revealed that the camera had been secretly activated.
      • This was my first thought. A friend of mine just started working for a company that uses physical response to gauge the effectiveness of advertising. Creepy shit.

      • Calling it a bug would seem insulting to one's intelligence, given Zuckerberg's and Facebook's status as a serial privacy offender. So, what could this be?

        No. It would simply be calling out tinfoil hat conspiracies for what they are. Facebook as a software package through it's core functionality needs camera access. With absolutely zero evidence of battery drain, network bandwidth drain, capacity being used up, or anything else that goes along with any kind of video analysis, calling this anything more than yet another daft conspiracy theory is insulting to people's intelligence.

        The bug is in the software. The software is available to use. Do the analysis (it

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Chromal ( 56550 )
          Once burned, twice shy. How many times has Facebook burned the public. I'm sorry, it's going to take more than your reassurances, given that Facebook has a credible reputation for unethical behavior that endangers user privacy and indeed systems of liberal democracy more generally. What could Zuckerberg possibly claim in order to discredit his well-earned bad reputation? What could Facebook possibly claim in order to discredit their well-earned bad reputation? Wouldn't you have to be self-loathing to even t

        • Nazi bootlicker rides to the defense of Faceboot's ubiquitous spying! No one at all is surprised.

    • It's facebook we are talking about, they aren't storing the video on their own servers, as that would cost them money. They have millions of users devices to store the data on. It's a bug in the sense that you weren't supposed to see them doing this.

  • NBD (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FunOne ( 45947 )

    I'm guessing the FB app goes ahead and readies the camera so you can quickly swipe and take a photo and avoid camera startup lag.

    Plenty of reasons to hate them, but this is a stretch.

    • Re:NBD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:00PM (#59407066)

      Battery life be damned?

      • Why would they care about that, especially since it's unlikely for them to be blamed for it. Most users would just conclude that their phone is old or getting slow and that they must need a new one.

        • Moral of the story:

          If you think your phone is old and slow, try uninstalling some apps.

          • Moral of the story:

            If you think your phone is old and slow, try uninstalling some apps.

            If you think at all, you should have already uninstalled Facebook.

            • If you think at all, you should have already uninstalled Facebook.

              Some people cut themselves, other people check Facebook every 20 minutes. It's not an issue of intelligence, but an issue of psychological self-harm.

    • Re:NBD (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lonng_Time_Lurker ( 6285236 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:27PM (#59407162)

      Because that's the behaviour that is most important!

      Should probably ready my mic, scanner, and security cameras just in case. For the children.

      -- I don't have FB.

    • Turns out there is always one even more gullible blackeyer out there.

      You do realize you're basically up to "time cube" conspiracy theory and "crazy guy on the street corner" level by now, right?
      No, having the opposite polarity doesn't make you any closer to realistic on the sanity scale.

    • More than likely it was a bug. There's no reason to have instant available camera without lag on a bloated piece of junk like Facebook.

      I like to remind you this is an app which runs in the hundreds of megabytes. It's not fast. It mostly doesn't try to be fast. The idea that it is actually bug free is laughable.

    • No, the everpresent covert surveillance still qualifies as a reason to hate them. In fact, it is the reason to hate them.

      The only stretch here is the acrobatic contortion you see from the apologists. Gotta put bread on the table somehow, I guess. But the shady companies I worked for, only fucked over other shady companies, not innocent people. Why can't you do that instead?

  • Why in the hell... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoeDuncan ( 874519 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:02PM (#59407074)
    ...would you install the FB app on your phone?

    Do you volunteer to watch commercials too?

    • ...suspension of mistrust, people usually go all the way. Full Amazon spying device in every room, GoogleFacebookAmazonMicrosoftApple apps, giving your phone number to every data broker who asks, ...

      It's like a straight guy willing to "try it out once", and going straight to a cruising club's dark room on "piss and fisting night". ;) (Yes, that actually is a thing. I don't judge. I run.)

      Once they got out again, they will be the most militant criticisers of it though.

    • Skype. Loads quicker, past the bug stage.
    • It comes pre-installed by the major carriers (some sort of kickback scheme where FB pays them). And it's set up so it can't be uninstalled unless your device is rooted. If you're not rooted, all you can do is disable it (as I did). But there are a couple zombie FB processes in the background which can't be disabled which will automatically update it and re-enable it (Facebook App Manager, Facebook App Installer).

      It's what finally got me to overcome my laziness and root my phone - so I could disable the

      • Sure, the app is there, but if it isn't activated, and no account login entered, I think it's fairly benign. Any evidence that just the presence of the app is a problem?

        (I'm no fan of FB, don't have it on any of my mobile devices for these very reasons, but hopefully just the app without ever logging in would be harmless..but that might be too hopeful.)

        • Odds that your carrier provides facebook with a unique identifier for your device; and FB still gets all of your browsing data anyways?

          That's the truly pernicious thing about these advertising networks (google/fb) embedded like ticks over the entire internet -- all it takes is one hit to a given page with the right data points exposed and your anonymity is gone (retroactively)

          No matter how zealously you try to avoid them, eventually you'll slip up -- even on a single site; and the constellation of data poin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          Any evidence that just the presence of the app is a problem?

          Given https://www.theverge.com/2019/... [theverge.com] you can fucking bet I don't trust the Facebook app itself.

    • Re:Why in the hell... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @02:42PM (#59407492) Journal

      ...would you install the FB app on your phone?

      While I agree with your sentiment, there is a reason most people do it. Facebook purposely cripples their mobile website to force you to use the app.

      Someone sent you a message. Want to read it? You have to install the app.

      Do you manage a business account? If you want to access it, you need to install the app.

      I get around this by having my browser request the desktop site, but most people don't know this hack. However, my wife told my the desktop site hack doesn't work on business accounts.

      • I can't speak to the issue of business accounts, but I use a third party app (Metal) to view Facebook. It lets you read your messages. I guess there are some others, but this is the one I settled on.

      • As an alternative to switching to desktop mode, you can still reply to messages by visiting the mobile basic [facebook.com] site.

        • As an alternative to switching to desktop mode, you can still reply to messages by visiting the mobile basic [facebook.com] site.

          Great info! It loads fast too!

    • My last two Sprint (slowly decreasing ~12% market share) phones came with a variety of Facebook, Amazon, and Google apps preinstalled. For most of those, the only control option is Enable/Disable.

    • Do you volunteer to watch commercials too?

      Yes I do. I openly volunteer to have commercials played on my TV as a natural side effect of what I actually want to do: watch a certain show.

      Great analogy though. Why would someone install Facebook on their phone? Well that's likely a natural side effect of wanting to see someone else's posts, or talking to someone via Messenger, or (god forbid) maybe they are one of those weirdos who live stream.

  • Bug? Accident? Sure it was! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AxisOfPleasure ( 5902864 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:08PM (#59407088)

    Facebook can't be trusted to secure the catch on a rabbit hutch. Imagine Facebook able to tie your facial expression to each ad and post you look at, that would be an absolute goldmine of useful information to them. Mistake, sure it was.

    • Yeah imagine that. Imagine how warm all those phones must be doing facial expression analysis on video streams. Imagine all that data being used sending stuff to the borg.

      I mean we'll have to continue imagining it because none of this scenario actually appears to have any evidence behind it but sure imagine away!

  • I call bullshit. How do you *accidentally* activate the camera?

    • If you have functionality that uses the camera, you could fail to turn it off after, or you could turn it on in preparation for that feature to be used. I can see how it might happen. Having said that, I dropped FB over a decade ago after trying it for a couple months.

  • The more we learn about Facebook... (Score:3)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:14PM (#59407108)
    ... the more evil Facebook looks.

    • TIL Facebook has access to the camera. ... Oh wait, no that was a feature it has had for close to 10 years now.

  • Was this the camera on the back, or the front? Or both? Only one of them is watching you.

    I suppose to run a facial recognition scan and ensure it's the right user. The rear camera seems less useful. Another question: is the microphone on as well? That can identify any voices in the vicinity.

    • Only one of them is watching you.

      Unless you are getting some 'me time' encouragement from what is on your phone at the time...

  • How gullible and black-eyed some people are. Like mirror images of conspiracy theorists.

  • The real bug (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @01:46PM (#59407246)
    From FB's POV, the bug was that they allowed camera-on to be detected by the user under some conditions. Expect it to be fixed ASAP.
  • For a lot less than that, I left Linkedin. Next April is my five-year anniversary of deleting Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Linkedin profiles. I suggest you do the same. Just create an empty, "ghost" account for those times when you need to get in touch with some company that only have social tool presence. And be happy!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Just create an empty, "ghost" account for those times when you need to get in touch with some company that only have social tool presence

      Hell no. Write to them. Costs you a stamp and an envelope but costs them a bucket load more to receive, scan, process and post a reply.

      You can mention in the letter that you would have emailed them but they didn't offer that option.

      Not that I ever need to do this. I can't access goods and services of social-media-only companies in the first place.

  • Why are people calling this a bug? Facebook employs the world's finest programmers. They wouldn't do this by accident. Who's going to jail for this?

    • They are sleazy bastard, no doubt. But *just because you don't like something doesn't make it 'illegal'*. They are a private company with whom you signed a contract and agreed to terms. At most you have a civil case for breach of contract. You would lose, but there is not criminal penalty for doing something you don't like.

      • Let's say somewhere in the dense, inscrutable leonine shrinkwap "contract" Faceboot calls "Terms of Service" and claims I "agreed" to, it says they can break into my house and steal my silverware. Think that's gonna stand up in court? It would take a _lot_ of suitcases full of cash in a very dark parking lot to make that one fly.

        Same thing here. Obviously criminal behavior, whether or not someone "agreed" to it hidden deep in a take-it-or-leave-it contact that no one reads.

  • This, and the plethora of other things that Facebook apps do, is why I never ever install any app that Facebook own (sand disable any that come preinstalled -- grrr). This includes WhatsApp. As a company, Facebook has 0 trust. And nobody should every have any more trust for this company, no matter what they say or do or promise, because they will always do the wrong thing. Always.

    If you really really must use Facebook, use it in an incognito tab on your browser only.

  • I know Facebook has denied this, but... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Facebook has said multiple times that it doesn't use the camera to spy on it's users, but here's the thing...

    I work at a tech company, and we had a facebook engineer come in to our office and talk about how they do user experience testing at facebook, and one of the was was with the front camera. The engineer was vague, and didn't really expand on if this was internal testing or external, but he was super open and nonchalant about this.

    About year later, when facebook was accused of using the front facing ca

  • I wonder if the real reason for this is that they're just trying to find out how much they can get away with. The next version will come round, steal your wife and poison your dog. Users and lawmakers will shrug.

  • (I had to repost this because it got immediately down modded into oblivion for some reason)

    Facebook has said multiple times that it doesn't use the camera to spy on it's users, but here's the thing...

    I work at a tech company, and we had a facebook engineer come in to our office and talk about how they do user experience testing at facebook, and one of the was was with the front camera. The engineer was vague, and didn't really expand on if this was internal testing or external, but he was super open and non

    • (I had to repost this because it got immediately down modded into oblivion for some reason)

      No you didn't. [slashdot.org] As of right now there's no mod activity on that post. AC always go to a score of 0.

  • It is not bug, it is not a general feature. It is meant for Zuckerberg and his close friends.

    The code monkey that let the cat out of the bag has been sent to the dog house.

  • They have proven time and time again that they can't nor want to protect it's users privacy and data. I really do hope they crash and burn. We don't need them and god forbid if you install their portal in your home also.

  • "And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

    --MM

  • Facebook also has a bridge they'd like to sell you...

  • So people didn't grant camera access permissions and the app can access the camera?

  • Only used a usb webcam when needed for the content that's wanted.
    Not using a cam? No need for the mic? Unplug the webcam.
    Want to use a mic and cam again? Plug the webcam back in.
    Nothing for the ad company, good censor, US gov, US mil, UK mil, MI6, GCHQ, the gov of New Zealand to get to collect on due to a PRISM like "bug".
  • I'm pretty sure this 'feature' builds off of a 2014 patent to which Facebook currently holds the license... "Techniques for emotion detection and content delivery" U.S. Patent Number: US20150242679A1 https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com] Check out the smiley phone user's emotions being identified and quantified as (s)he scrolls through the newsfeed: https://patentimages.storage.g... [googleapis.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close