Facebook Home destroys any notion of privacy

http://gigaom.com/2013/04/04/why-facebook-home-bothers-me-it-destroys-any-notion-of-privacy/

by shawndumas • 13 years ago

198 155 13 years ago

jfernandez• 13 years ago

"This future is going to happen – and it is too late to debate. However, the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us."

A little sensationalized? It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Honestly I think most of us can agree Facebook on average is useful service that has improved our lives. So yes it will probably help target us, the product, better to marketing/advertising.

As more and more promising services get absorbed or shutdown maybe it'll get clearer and clearer that if you dont want your data to be the product itself then we should start paying for the services we care about.

dsfasfasf• 13 years ago

>>It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil".

Devil's Advocate: Note everyone in the third reich was evil.

p.s. No need to mention Godwin's law. I know about it.

Noted• 13 years ago

Duly noted

rhizome2• 13 years ago

Does creating their own launcher give them any data on non-FB applications used on the phone?

untog2• 13 years ago

Not automatically, no. But in theory they could see who you call if they built their own dialer, see who you text if they build their own SMS client (Messenger already does this), etc. etc.

rayiner4• 13 years ago

I don't use the word "evil" pretty much for anybody, but I think the business model is at the very least screwed up. If it's a valuable service, why do they have to be so shady? I'd happily pay facebook $10/month or whatever (I can't imagine they make more than that on ads on me) to use their service. The problem is that they make it seem free, and people just don't understand the extent to which it tracks you. It's the same business model car dealerships use when they try to steer you towards negotiating in terms of monthly payments to avoid your focusing on the bottom line cost--you can get more out of people when you hide the ball about how much your service actually costs them.

Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook?

There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?

onedev2• 13 years ago

Is Google's business model screwed up as well?

arindone2• 13 years ago

1) The constant refrain from many in the tech community of "I would pay to use service X and therefore having a paywall is a legitimate business model" frustrates me to no end, because it's such a "moderately wealthy tech person from the West" point of view held by those with the disposable income to spend on these services. If Facebook's mission is to "make the world more open and connected," it would be impossible to accomplish that if you're charging some rando in Uganda who is accessing Facebook on a 'feature' phone, or worse, the equivalent of their monthly or yearly income. Further, if you look at the political discourse in the middle east that is occurring predominantly on FB and Twitter, it would be ass-backward (and truly "evil") to charge these people to have that discourse.

2) Indeed the point you make about non-techie friends is relevant but you miss the point -- most people don't care about these issues if the result is an amazingly useful tool. So what if ads are correlated with usage: god-forbid you see something interesting that you may want to buy or is relevant to your tastes. And honestly it's no more true that FB 'gives' your data away any more than Google 'gives' away your Gmail/Gdrive/Picassa/etc. data.

VeejayRampay• 13 years ago

Right, cause pre-Home Facebook was so respectful of people's private lives...

kmfrk• 13 years ago

There's an Apple-tastic motto for you:

   All your privacy is gone. Again.

rhizome2• 13 years ago

    Give up your privacy again for the very first time.

Systemic33• 13 years ago

Giving up privacy has never been this much fun

msutherl2• 13 years ago

  All your privacy is gone again. Better.

gavinlynch• 13 years ago

If this is a problem for you, then don't use it.

smiddereens• 13 years ago

You don't get it man, there won't be a choice. You will be forced to use Facebook Home.

Karunamon• 13 years ago

On one phone by one manufacturer. If you don't like the OS, don't buy the phone.

icebraining• 13 years ago

That assumes you know about this in the first place. It's not like everyone reads Hacker News or GigaOM; this kind of news often doesn't trickle down to MM.

yalogin2• 13 years ago

The article brings up a very good point about FB getting access to a lot more user data on the phone outside of their app since they essentially are replacing the app launcher as well. Google gets access to all this data by owning the OS. FB in that sense made a brilliant play. It kind of corrupts google's data collection as well since all user interaction will be going through the FB Home app now.

Also its kind of naive to expect facebook to respect privacy when all they do is deal with data.

orangethirty• 13 years ago

You think Google will let that happen? They are enemies competing for the same market. What I think will happen is that Facebook will fork Android, offer facebook edition phones, and simply one up google. How come? Google is awfully bad at marketing, and Facebook is not.

wting• 13 years ago

Not too long ago when iOS was released users jumped ship to Android due to the maps fiasco.

If Facebook forks Android, do you think people are willing to give up Google's ecosystem in exchange for Facebook's?

Even if you find Facebook chat / messages a viable replacement for Gtalk / Gmail, this still means no access to Google Play Store.

Amazon was willing to create a second competing marketplace and sell its devices as media players, but Facebook will not have those in place if they fork Android. Do you think Facebook has enough leverage to pull this off?

I don't think so, but since the phone is already in the works time will tell.

LeeHunter• 13 years ago

I'm not aware of any significant amount of Facebook marketing (outside of Facebook itself) but quite a lot of good Google marketing. I would have said Google was far more experienced and capable in that area.

yalogin2• 13 years ago

I am not sure FB forking OS gives them the ROI. Its a waste of effort for them. FB does not have anything to offer outside of their social network. The Home project is all they have to offer. Nothing more.

Also the tech crowd do they marketing for Google. Goodwill and great services are their marketing tools and that seems to be working very well for them so far. Just look at this site and reddit to see how vehemently people support Google.

cremnob• 13 years ago

Facebook doesn't need to fork Android. They're commandeering Android from Google. People using this will be spending time in Facebook's ecosystem, pushing Google's services into the background. And considering that Google doesn't directly profit from Android but instead tries to profit from people using their services and subsequently ads, this is bad for Google.

wvenable2• 13 years ago

A launcher is just another app; it doesn't have any extra powers. It just happens be the app that is launched/restored when the home button is pressed -- that's it.

Zikes3• 13 years ago

It also replaces the app drawer, which means when you click an app icon to launch an app -- from either the home screen or the app drawer -- FB Home can make a note of it and send that information to FB.

killion• 13 years ago

So previously your private information went to Google/Samsung or HTC or Motorola/Your carrier, now it will go to Facebook/Google/Samsung or HTC or Motorola/Your carrier?

bhaile• 13 years ago

Right. Between Google Now and other location services by Google (Latitude), Google knows when I'm home, work, traveling, etc. Now Facebook will want to get into that information via their "Home" app/launcher. Many services want location data. Context based location data is getting more popular.

arindone2• 13 years ago

Some thoughts:

1) this article is based upon hypothetical notions about what Home "may" do, despite it being not even released yet

2) Google has collected user data for ages via Android for Google Now and few complained about privacy issues -- all data from its various accounts are aggregated into one centralized location to target ads more effectively for users. If you're really going to cry about privacy issues you need to be fair here and hold everyone accountable, and not just sites you may not like.

3) The majority of people may not care, frankly -- people optimizes their utility differently.

rayiner4• 13 years ago

> few complained about privacy issues

Everyone complains about Google's privacy issues. I remember having a class discussion on it a couple of years ago.

unreal372• 13 years ago

A couple of years ago... and that Google Privacy discussion ended within days of starting.

u23282• 13 years ago

It's concerning to me, because I'm worried about this social network creep over our phones. Of course, I'm not going to install this crap, but if Facebook Home proves successful for Facebook, will Google move in the same direction? (Yes.) We've already seen Google kill off Google Reader in hopes of driving more traffic to Google Plus.

This is what prevents me from getting too invested in a mobile ecosystem like Android or iOS. I like smartphones, but I want the device to serve me, not Google or Facebook's advertisers.

untog2• 13 years ago

will Google move in the same direction?

They could already have if they wanted to- they own the code for the stock launcher, after all.

u23282• 13 years ago

Right, but it's all about the incentives. If they did that now, there would be a big backlash against Google and Android. However, with Facebook leading the way, it could become a plausible scenario to see some similar behavior from Google.

Hopefully not, though. I hope this whole thing is a disaster for Facebook.

leeoniya3• 13 years ago

i will just say that Firefox OS cannot arrive quickly enough.

Zikes3• 13 years ago

I'm not sure how Firefox OS vs Android OS really factors into the discussion. If Firefox OS is fully-featured and open enough to become an alternative to Android, FB Home could conceivably be built to run just as well on Firefox OS as on Android.

r00fus• 13 years ago

Exactly, of course, unless the licensing terms to modify FirefoxOS as much as Android are onerous to the likes of Facebook.

I think the pining for FirefoxOS is only meaningful if Mozilla takes a stand on privacy or the like. And they're not in a strong position to do so.

leeoniya3• 13 years ago

yes, but i'm expecting mozilla will have vastly more granular and privacy-first oriented permissions than android. since google wants your data, and mozilla does not.

ideally, i would like to hook and script a conditional firewall of sorts between any apps and my hardware or data. for example, i dont want any app querying my location when i am at home or at work. how awesome would it be to set rules like this?

some invasive permissions are ok when i choose to allow them, but not indefinitely so long as the app lives on my phone, which is the situation right now. i can do a lot of quasi-scripting with Tasker for android, but not nearly enough.

Executor3• 13 years ago

As well as Ubuntu phone/tablet.

harshreality• 13 years ago

Because Ubuntu would never do anything shady... like having desktop search search Amazon...

Nursie5• 13 years ago

I'm not sure why I would allow Facebook on to my phone in the first place, let alone to run the whole show. Their privacy record isn't exactly great and runs contrary to their business model.

I don't trust their app (look at the email address change nonsense), let alone a bigger one, and the page renders just fine in a mobile browser. I also find the whole "ping me when a close friend does or says anything" aspect of the app as I've seen others use it to be a little obsessive and possibly even creepy.

unreal372• 13 years ago

If you don't trust them, you wouldn't install this app. So... whats the issue? Nobody will be harmed by this.

Nursie5• 13 years ago

"If you don't trust them, you wouldn't install this app. So... whats the issue?"

Other people will install it without thinking about the implications.

"Nobody will be harmed by this."

What definition of 'harm' are we using? Because they've already shown that given access to people's address books they cause trouble.

Ilmesnkie_Jones• 13 years ago

What happens if you don't install the app but it comes pre-installed on your shiny new phone and you're not tech savvy enough to take it off?

voltagex_• 13 years ago

Depending on which phone you buy, it might not be you installing it.

trhtrsh10• 13 years ago

> I also find the whole "ping me when a close friend does or says anything" aspect of the app as I've seen others use it to be a little obsessive and possibly even creepy.

The problem here is in your friendship, not Facebook.

Nursie5• 13 years ago

I don't think so, the people I've observed that have this enabled are very good friends of mine and I don't mind that they get pinged when I post something inconsequential. It's also not my call, I'm posting info for them to see and if they want to use a client that notifies them any time I post it then that's their right.

But there is definitely the potential for stalker-ish stuff there. I suppose in that case, yes the friendship would be the problem.

--edit-- But when the friendship isn't in question, I guess I find it a bit weird and overly-reliant on FB to have your phone set up to alert you every time a 'close' friend does anything.

jcomis• 13 years ago

I want to know how permissions will be handled on Facebook Home when preinstalled. Going through the play store, you will more or less see what you are agreeing to (likely, a huge list of everything possible). But preinstalled?

desas• 13 years ago

I doubt it would prompt you for the permissions in a similar way to the play store, I imagine that everything they need legally is probably covered by the facebook ToS, or will be in an extra ToS clicked through on first use.

mattmaroon5• 13 years ago

This is idiotic. For one, it's no secret which apps are popular. Facebook doesn't need a trojan horse to figure that out, they just need to look at App Annie.

For another, any app with location services permissions can do exactly what he's describing.

Also what does "Android allows Facebook to do whatever it wants on the platform, and that means accessing the hardware as well," mean? Unless you're rolling your own version of Android (is that what's on the HTC First?) that's simply not true. You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want" if you're putting it in the Play app store.

As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.

_jackwink• 13 years ago

Exactly, I don't see this any more privacy invasive than Google Now.

It really boils down to how much you trust the company/app.

infinita740• 13 years ago

Yeah, google know your home and where your workplace is but doesn't publish it to everyone. Facebook did that with a lot of information. Plus it may change how things behave without you agreement (think of @facebook.com emails)

Google also use that data to provide a service (automatically call the navigation app to came back home at night or just give you a reminder on places you go every week). I doon't think facebook will give any kind of service other than keep my friens updated about whatever I do and wherever I go and this is frightening (not the fact that a big company has this data but the fact that everyone will know it)

nonamegiven2• 13 years ago

Why would you trust any company of that size?

RexRollman• 13 years ago

I agree. Besides, most people who use Facebook are those "I have nothing to hide" types.

PavlovsCat• 13 years ago

So? I still care about major parts of a society being that recklessly dumb. I live on this planet, it's my problem, too. I cannot afford to live in a "democracy" full of people who are so easily influenced and/or blackmailed. Their votes count as much as mine, so this is a bug.

suyash• 13 years ago

I agree with OM, Facebook Home is not just one app but a suite of apps running on your phone. The scary part is that these would be bundled by OEM's and might be harder to stop and even uninstall :( Think about the scenarios when you start to see all kinds of ad's popping up on your home screen and impossible to remove? . Remember, fb still needs to solve the problem of serving ad's on mobile well.

ramayac• 13 years ago

Exactly, this is "the money quote":

"The scary part is that these would be bundled by OEM's and might be harder to stop and even uninstall".

trhtrsh10• 13 years ago

FB was already pre-installed and non-removable on many Anroid devices (including first-party Google devices!), so that's not a big change.

danilocampos3• 13 years ago

> As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.

Except for the part where no other app collects or maintains anywhere near as much data about your personal history, your friends, what you look like, what your friends look like, what you like, what your friends like, who you talk to, what you talk about, what your friends talk about, which services you subscribe to, where you went to school, where you worked, when you worked, when you graduated, when you began a relationship, when you ended a relationship, your sexual preferences...

I could keep going.

mattmaroon5• 13 years ago

Facebook already has that data and gives most of it away via connect to third parties with a click. If you're already using Facebook, and using location-based apps, then getting upset over this is silly.

freehunter3• 13 years ago

Well, any other app could. Facebook is not exclusive in having access to this information, they're just one of the few asking you for it. Every other app could ask for it as well.

fakeer• 13 years ago

>>As far as I can tell this is just another third party launcher with the same privacy implications as any app that has GPS permissions.

No, it doesn't. I was, till recently, using Nova Launcher and its permissions would pale in comparison with Facebook Messenger's permissions. Mind it, I am not mentioning the full fledged Facebook app here but just the messenger. I am just uninstalling it, to hell with those in my friend list who have virtually ditched all other communication media.(never looked at it's permissions before today)

Why, when WhatsApp and all other apps might be doing it(not mentioning any G app)? Track record. Facebook is a history-sheeter when it comes to privacy and the pledge to keep repeating their act is their business model. Otherwise Google already has everything I do.

>>You have access to a few things you don't on iOS but it's not "whatever you want"

Though it's technically true, the whatever you want part; but the part "have access to a few things you don't on iOS" is such an understatement that it leans towards being a bs.

trhtrsh10• 13 years ago

What's the privacy difference between G+ and FB?

SkittlesNTwix• 13 years ago

I know this doesn't ring true for most people, but I'm actively looking to distance myself from facebook. It doesn't make me "happy" for the most part. It doesn't add to my overall level of fulfillment. Most of my "friends" on fb aren't real friends and often I'm not truly interested in what they're doing. These are all common complaints - nothing new here, but they're all the reason why I'm not interested in incorporating what fb already does, more deeply into my life.

msutherl2• 13 years ago

It's a great idea! I've removed everybody from my news feed and use it for events, email, and finding keeping track of people I meet (Rolodex).

Havoc• 13 years ago

Never trusted FB to begin with. I've got a profile that forwards notifications to my email in case someone needs to contact me. Good luck extracting data from that.

saintx• 13 years ago

The problem with online privacy, is that people believe it exists.

Executor3• 13 years ago

That's why you need people to fight for it. Consider movements such as silent circle and megabox. At the very least, people should worry about blocking companies from abusing user data, removing Patriot Act, so on. Truth is, people have to give a shit.

edouard1234567• 13 years ago

Facebook "open house"

Vinnix• 13 years ago

Facebook has a lot to offer and its design is showing to be top notch. I think based on numbers they are a 'mobile' company, but all this fluff and desire to sandbox them from the others just proves that they aren't competing, but just being thrifty.

voxmatt3• 13 years ago

I think the more obvious and immediate threat to privacy is that anyone can see the contents of your facebook stream right on the lock screen; and they can even interact with the contents without unlocking the phone.

CrazedGeek• 13 years ago

Do we know if that's true if the phone is password protected? (Honest question, I haven't been able to watch the video.)

Zikes3• 13 years ago

Android already offers lock screen widgets, so it's possible FB Home will include something to that effect that would show even while the phone is locked.

It would be entirely optional to use that widget, however, unless FB Home is able to replace the lock screen itself. As far as I know, that can't be done without rooting the device.

voxmatt3• 13 years ago

No idea. I have been looking for some indication in the coverage but there's been none that I've seen. It seems clear (see my reply before) that it replaces the lock screen when it's not password protected.

archivator• 13 years ago

Luckily, Android's lock screen has deep dependencies (purges in-memory passwords for VPN, for example), so it can't be disabled be an app. That said, it can be prevented from appearing due to a timeout. Pressing the power button should always lock your phone.

nsmartt• 13 years ago

Even if this isn't true, your friends with unlocked phones could be leaking your otherwise private posts to anyone who sees their phone.

ivankirigin2• 13 years ago

  The phone’s GPS can send constant information back to the Facebook servers, 
  telling it your whereabouts at any time.

I really hope someone can finally make something like Loopt work on smartphones. I can't believe we need to manually check in to see where friends are right now. FindMyFriends on iOS requires your apple password, and much like GameCenter, the social design is horrendous.

Focusing just on the privacy side ignores all the benefits from giving a service more information. Facebook isn't tricking users into this. Users want it.

tlrobinson2• 13 years ago

Highlight?

ivankirigin2• 13 years ago

I get that they needed to drive engagement before they had ubiquity, but the interaction became about seeing people I didn't know. Like most social products, the experience changes when more people are on it. In my opinion, Facebook, Apple, Google, and device makers are the only companies that can solve this problem.

tlrobinson2• 13 years ago

So Facebook can now do everything Apple and Google has been able to do for years.

damoncali• 13 years ago

Apple and Google have a don't have a long track record of intentionally exposing information that was entrusted to them as private.

badgar5• 13 years ago

I don't think we should be too surprised with how FB will use the new data. I'm just wondering who Facebook is going to share this data with.

I know a guy who works at one of Facebook's "partner companies" that pays gobs for FB user data. This partner company gets (as far as they can tell) fully-populated user data in Facebook's user dumps - way, way more information than they need or ask for. So the partner company puts this data through arduous preprocessing steps to filter out most of the details before any user data hits real systems. They're scared of the legal liability of holding onto all the personal details they receive don't need but Facebook shares anyway because Facebook genuinely doesn't care as long as they're monetizing.

So yeah, I'm scared of where this new data is going to go. Not what FB uses it for themselves.

monkeynotes• 13 years ago

I deleted my FB account when they IPO'd as I could then plainly see that the only worth in the company was user data and it would certainly be monetised as much as possible.

But 'deleting' an account probably doesn't do much more than remove the data from the immediate web services. My data has probably been sold to multiple 3rd parties by now.

badgar5• 13 years ago

> But 'deleting' an account probably doesn't do much more than remove the data from the immediate web services.

If you think they delete the data at all from anywhere you're out of your mind. Records are tombstoned, moved to cold(er) storage for efficiency and then not displayed. Certainly not deleted.

HarrisonFisk2• 13 years ago

When you delete your account, the data is actually removed. As part of the recent privacy audit, the Irish DPC reviewed the account deletion framework and verified that it does indeed work:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/21-09-12--Facebook-Ireland... (section 2.10 - page 41)

jetru2• 13 years ago

> They're scared of the legal liability of holding onto all the personal details they receive don't need but Facebook shares anyway because Facebook genuinely doesn't care as long as they're monetizing.

I find it odd that Facebook isn't scared of the same legal liability. Infact, they should be more scared. I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to. They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves. I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.

badgar5• 13 years ago

> I find it odd that Facebook isn't scared of the same legal liability. Infact, they should be more scared.

You don't understand how partnerships work in this case. Facebook is paid to provide data according to a contract between the two companies. That's it. They have many, many such contracts to fulfill with many partners. These contracts don't say "we provide exactly the data you ask for, no more, no less" because that is a lot, lot more work and at the end of the day the contracts still get signed and FB still gets paid. A lot. Where do you see legal liability for FB so far? Their terms of service fully permit this data sharing, and the contracts are just between FB and partner companies.

Meanwhile, the partner companies use the shared data to produce value-added products which they provide to their customers under existing contracts and policies. They can't violate their customer's privacy or rights under any of the existing such policies, which are not identical to FB's. In fact, depending on the industry of the partner company, these policies can be extremely different. It is up to the partner company - not Facebook - to comply with the partner company's contracts/policies.

> I don't see any reason why Facebook would give away more information than they need to.

Facebook doesn't see any reason why they should waste time withholding more data than they need to. They still get paid the same amount, and the partner companies just filter out what they don't want. What's the point? There isn't even a big long-term concern here for Facebook, since extra social data isn't exactly very useful years later.

> They have the skill and resources to filter data themselves.

You say that, but every large technology company has to prioritize what they use engineering manpower for. Not everything a company can do or wants to do ends up getting done. For example, you might say "Facebook has the skill and resources to delete data from their CDN. I highly doubt they would throw away money on byte stored in Akamai" and yet they didn't do so for years and probably still don't. And that's a far easier problem with real measurable costs. Compare that to filtering the same enormous data set differently for each partner company when there's no compelling business reason to do so. The contracts are still going to be signed and Facebook will still get paid. Why should anyone care?

> I highly doubt that they would throw away personal and sensitive to other companies.

This is something FB is doing and have been doing for years. So your doubts are baseless.

duck• 13 years ago

I'm just wondering who Facebook is going to share this data with.

I think you answered your own question with: pays gobs

zdrtx• 13 years ago

Facebook doesn't sell user data.

badgar5• 13 years ago

Yes, yes it does. You'll need to refine your brief assertion to make it correct. It's all anonymized of course, but Facebook absolutely has many commercial agreements to share its user data with partner companies. A common part of these agreements, for example, is for the partner companies to also share their user data with Facebook.

HarrisonFisk2• 13 years ago

Facebook does not sell user data regardless of what you may have heard.

See: https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583/

zmmmmm• 13 years ago

I find this line extremely cynical:

> Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us

It's entirely possible that better targeted marketing and advertising can "improve" our lives. To state this outcome as a dire dystopian end point is making a huge cynical assumption about the motives of companies and commerce in general. I honestly believe that Facebook (and Google for that matter) actually want to improve our lives. I honestly believe that they think that they can introduce advertising in such a way that it's a win win for both parties, at least for a significant number of people.

That doesn't mean I'm naive about things, or even agree. But to see this assumption - that these companies are out to intentionally make our lives worse - written into editorial reporting as if it's a foregone conclusion, is disappointing.

eplanit• 13 years ago

I believe you mis-characterized the statement you're objecting to: "...not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us."

"but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us" does not equal "are out to intentionally make our lives worse". His point is that is clear that FB _will_ benefit from the newly acquired data. You have confidence we all _might_ benefit. The OP points out FB's history, which is undeniably historic in how it has challenged social norms for privacy. It is also no secret that FB (and Google, and ...) make money from advertising, and that rich datasets of details about people make for financially richer advertisers. Skepticism (maybe a little cynicism, even) is not unhealthy or "mean", in this context.

rakeshsharmak• 13 years ago

No one doubts that better targeted marketing and advertising can "improve" lives. The dystopian part of this scenario is vesting just two companies with so much power. For example, FB (and Twitter) have already begun restricting API access to apps that are too big or unwilling to be bought out. In the absence of an alternate (or competing) network, they control your experience (and user data). Besides the negative consequences for commerce, there are wider implications for individuals. Dictators and totalitarian regimes sincerely believe they are doing best for their people. That may not be the case.

ferongr• 13 years ago

Instead of bloggers and "journalists" complaining about a service they do not pay for, they should do the only thing they can. Delete their accounts. I saw the writing on the wall 3 years ago and did it. I was not worse off afterwards.

Passively complaining (while at the same time, ironically, including FB buttons) without taking actual actions does nothing.

nonamegiven2• 13 years ago

Ads suck, but the bigger danger is that the uber-profile will be available for subpoena, or the govt might just flip the fuckit bit and take it because they can. Being allowed to run a billion dollar business unmolested by the govt would be a strong incentive, especially for a company not known for privacy advocacy.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

Get rid of the sharing buttons and tracking cookies on your page and maybe I'll take your argument seriously.

arthulia• 13 years ago

Google Now already does all of this. It deduced my address by scraping my emails, and somehow it knows where I work, too. When my airline tickets were emailed to me, it brought up flight tracker information and weather for both arrival and destination cities. Creepy.

trhtrsh10• 13 years ago

Yeah, and they make like 6 copies of every email you send or receive also. Creepy.

recloop• 13 years ago

This is one of those posts with a scandalous headline to draw you in, but without anything substantial to back it up. I am quite disappointed that this came from a stalwart of a tech blogger like Om Malik. I can understand this coming from an MG Siegler or an Arrington or from the joke of a blog, Gizmodo.

It hinges on the GPS location, which Apple does, quite publicly with theing like Find my iPhone. Google does that already, and so do every other GPS device on earth. I don't even need to know if you are stationary at one location every night. I can just connect the dots on your end points of your trips and figure it out.

Heck even an app like Yelp can figure my home address, based on my restaurant searches. Facebook already knows much more about us, with or without our permission; just by using the website.

malloreon• 13 years ago

I have an iphone and even if I had an android, I'd never install this app or get an HTC First. I cannot say the same for everyone I'm fb friends with.

Question: if one of my fb friends installs this or buys that phone, will fb have any additional access to MY personal data?

trhtrsh10• 13 years ago

Obviously not, as Facebook already has ALL your data.

javis• 13 years ago

No.

Unless you SMS or call that person. Then maybe.

joshguthrie• 13 years ago

TL;DR: "I already tell Facebook all it needs to know, but this new thing is gonna destroy all my privacy (like the Timeline did, like the Graph API did, like FBConnect did,...)"

Ideka• 13 years ago

Wow. It's like the, what, fifth time Facebook destroys any notion of privacy?

cbeach• 13 years ago

"the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us"

If "the problem" is more relevant advertising, I for one, welcome Facebook Home. When advertising becomes useful to me I might stop blocking it.

freehunter3• 13 years ago

It's a controversial topic, but I agree. If the privacy issue is handled properly (advertisers are not allowed to access any data about you) and the ads are not terribly intrusive, advertising based on what I'm actually interested in and looking for is useful. I'm not the kind of person who gets irrationally angry about any advertising at all, only if it gets in the way of what I'm trying to do at the moment.

alanctgardner2• 13 years ago

Everything he's complaining about is a feature in Google Now. Google Now does know where my house is based on where I stay during the night. It figured out where my girlfriend lives, and tries to route me there sometimes. It knows where I work. It knows when I'm expecting a package from eBay, where I shop, where I go to eat out. Based on those signals, it probably knows how much disposable income I have. This is just Facebook getting jealous over how well Google has sucked all of this data out of it's userbase.

As an aside, Google Now is pretty awesome, and I trust our Google Overlords to not use my personal information for evil.

leephillips• 13 years ago

"I trust our Google Overlords to not use my personal information for evil."

What do you consider "evil"? You must already accept that they are, or plan to, sell your personal information to advertisers - because why else would they bother setting this service up? Purely for your convenience? So you've made your peace with that, and don't consider it evil, which is entirely up to you. But someone else may feel very differently about this.

dreamdu5t• 13 years ago

I am so... so... fucking sick of Facebook privacy articles. Don't want Facebook? Don't install their app and use their service. End of discussion - years ago.

aet• 13 years ago

I just noticed that gigaom.com has at least 9 tracking services on their site.

Facebook Home destroys any notion of privacy

Related Stories