Facebook Portal – Privacy review(foundation.mozilla.org)
foundation.mozilla.org
Facebook Portal – Privacy review
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/products/facebook-portal/
113 comments
Disney is definitely milking that acquisition for all its worth. Which is understandable if you read the history of Disney. Licensing for Mikey Mouse was a cash cow for them from the start. And if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I generally enjoy Disney content. However, every time I turn around now I'm seeing the Muppets shilling for some product or other. The Muppets are Disney's to do with as they please. I just wish they'd be more discerning and tasteful about who and what they license to. Pitching for anything coming out of Facebook sours the Muppets brand in my opinion.
You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the data. That's not how it works though. Once people realize you're an untrustworthy megacorp who's mining and selling data, there's nothing you can do to disprove it except get out of the data game altogether; the cat is already out of the bag.
I don't think a generic version would have ever caught my attention at all. I'd think Instagram's jumped the shark if they branded it with that. Like, that would just sound like a photo frame that only shows IG posts or something; I'd roll my eyes and move on. I don't know anything about WhatsApp other than people were hacked or something.
For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.
For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.
I wonder how much they're interested in resuscitating their reputation with this product vs hoe much they're interested in targeting a demographic they may not have had a lot of in roads into. A demographic that has time and money to spend: the Baby Boomer generation and older. They're generally not technically savvy like the generations after them so Facebook built a device that all they have to do is talk to. Every time I see an ad for Facebook Portal it includes a person from that demographic.
Meanwhile, Facebook gets to suck up all that valuable data they so lust for and start selling ads to the elderly Portal users. I thought it was bad that my parents friends are falling for scams and buying too much stuff on QVC. I don't think they stand a chance at Facebook targeting them.
I hate that I'm so cynical about this. I really do. But Facebook has proven time and again all they care about is our data to sell to advertisers. So I can't help but see any new products of theirs through that lens.
Meanwhile, Facebook gets to suck up all that valuable data they so lust for and start selling ads to the elderly Portal users. I thought it was bad that my parents friends are falling for scams and buying too much stuff on QVC. I don't think they stand a chance at Facebook targeting them.
I hate that I'm so cynical about this. I really do. But Facebook has proven time and again all they care about is our data to sell to advertisers. So I can't help but see any new products of theirs through that lens.
The concept is great, a human-usable video conferencing system that doesn't suck massive balls.
As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...)
The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it.
Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data.
Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk.
But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded.
The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.
As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...)
The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it.
Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data.
Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk.
But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded.
The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.
Honestly the UX of the privacy not included blog is pretty terrible. It is seems as if the blog is simultaneously sarcastic, shaming, and endorsing all at once. I would strongly suggest removing all of the unnecessary visual formatting, adding iconography to indicate Mozilla's stance on a topic, removing the personal tone from the articles, and overall restructuring the information to communicate the important information more swiftly and clearly.
I don’t get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.
You mean like in https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/w..., which you get to from "about the guide"?
This... thing in your house is only one Privacy Terms & Conditions update away from tailoring ads to scare you into voting for whichever political candidate promises to not pursue Facebook with an AntiTrust lawsuit. If that isn’t terrifying, I don’t know what is.
I wish Mozilla would stop criticizing everything that moves in the name of virtue and instead focus on making great products.
They are just following along with their mission statement.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.
How does privacy fit into their mission of keeping the Internet open and accessible? It is an orthogonal issue.
Because some users value privacy, and if you can't access the web without interacting with Google or Facebook, then you have a problem.
Even George Orwell couldn't imagine people would pay the Big Brother to watch them.
This could use a copyedit:
> The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you.
> The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you.
Despite the good review, there is no way in hell I would trust Facebook enough to use this in my home.
[deleted]
All nerds, find now positive about Facebook's privacy violation and give me minus
Saw an advertisement for this in a theater some months back. The wife and I turned to each other and said "Hell no." She isn't even that security aware, it's just... why. What is this for? What problem does this solve? Our iPhones do this already without constant surveillance and probably have superior hardware.
This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem. In the 90's this would've been pretty amazing, but in an era of Smartphones that more or less all support this already with multiple apps, who is this for? Why would you have it? Not even going into the privacy aspects, it's basically a voice-controlled video phone.
This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem. In the 90's this would've been pretty amazing, but in an era of Smartphones that more or less all support this already with multiple apps, who is this for? Why would you have it? Not even going into the privacy aspects, it's basically a voice-controlled video phone.
I would not go so far as to assume iPhones do not perform surveillance. What Tim Cook says is one thing, what the national security letter they've received says is another.
Surveillance limited to NSL-targeted people as an exception is still better than global surveillance for everyone as part of their business model.
Stadia is a dream come true for Google. Collecting all that personal data at scale about how people interact with virtual environments and how they react to certain situations will give them an unprecedented look into human nature.
Ads and product placements is AAA games is also fairly untapped territory, this is why I'm doubtful that Google will give up on this opportunity and shut down Stadia, as some people have predicted.
Ads and product placements is AAA games is also fairly untapped territory, this is why I'm doubtful that Google will give up on this opportunity and shut down Stadia, as some people have predicted.
Speaking of product placement in games, I also find it untapped and potentially huge market, not just in AAA games.
I mean, if there's a car in the game, why not make it Renault to sponsor development? It seems vastly better than obnoxious ad banners or freemium whale hunting. Is there anything morally problematic with it?
I mean, if there's a car in the game, why not make it Renault to sponsor development? It seems vastly better than obnoxious ad banners or freemium whale hunting. Is there anything morally problematic with it?
Transaction costs, mostly. It's hard to connect developers and advertisers at scale. It's also difficult technically, does every car in a game need to look the same now?
Like, I totally think someone could make money from this, but it's unlikely to be as profitable as whale-hunting so it probably won't happen for a while.
Like, I totally think someone could make money from this, but it's unlikely to be as profitable as whale-hunting so it probably won't happen for a while.
This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. This is something I would get for my grandmother, or my wife's grandmother, instead of an iPhone for video conferencing. If it was not offered by Facebook.
I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the feature.
I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the feature.
> This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate.
So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?
So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?
Because regulation is lagging. Call your congressperson (US-centric advice).
Exactly. The ads themselves are always about the grandparent-grandchildren relationship
[deleted]
We all know what product-market fit is.
Portal is an example of bad company-product fit.
Portal is an example of bad company-product fit.
A very interesting point. Nobody has any complaints about the Portal itself, just the fact that it's from Facebook. If a different company had come out with it... let's face it, that company would be swallowed by Google/Amazon/Facebook/MS sooner or later.
I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy.
I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market????
It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.
I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market????
It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.
The average person tends not to care too much about their privacy. It's an abstract problem, and it'd take an extreme like video evidence of a Facebook employee jacking it to a nude photo they discretely captured from your webcam while you were in the bathroom.
Just look at the Oculus Rift. The "sensors" are literally webcams connected to a Facebook app that you point at your living room, your bedroom, your kids, etc. Yet people see a new toy and none of that matters. Even tech-savvy and privacy conscious people will contort their world views to justify the purchase.
Just look at the Oculus Rift. The "sensors" are literally webcams connected to a Facebook app that you point at your living room, your bedroom, your kids, etc. Yet people see a new toy and none of that matters. Even tech-savvy and privacy conscious people will contort their world views to justify the purchase.
> The average person tends not to care too much about their privacy.
This is not quite accurate. The average person cares a lot about privacy, but understands privacy differently from the HN/tech/anti-Facebook zeitgeist.
People care about privacy from people they know. They care about whether their parents, significant other, coworkers, and friends can see things they intend for them not to.
Most people don't care about whether private information about them is collected and stored on servers without any human ever looking at it (even if, hypothetically, some humans with nefarious intent could look at it someday). But this is an extremely narrow interpretation of "privacy".
This is not quite accurate. The average person cares a lot about privacy, but understands privacy differently from the HN/tech/anti-Facebook zeitgeist.
People care about privacy from people they know. They care about whether their parents, significant other, coworkers, and friends can see things they intend for them not to.
Most people don't care about whether private information about them is collected and stored on servers without any human ever looking at it (even if, hypothetically, some humans with nefarious intent could look at it someday). But this is an extremely narrow interpretation of "privacy".
I've seen TV ads for Portal and one version of it is a grandpa telling us viewers how great Portal is for connecting him and his grandkids, showing off the auto-pan feature (the kids ran around their living room and the device's camera followed them).
So I guess they're targeting non-techie elderlies for one.
I wonder if you're just in a bubble when you say what you say. I'm in my city's FB group for youths and one time they were doing some excursion where tickets were age-dependant (discount for under 26s). The admin asked the people wanting tickets to post their names and DOB, and there were maybe 50 replies to that post with the asked information...
So I guess they're targeting non-techie elderlies for one.
I wonder if you're just in a bubble when you say what you say. I'm in my city's FB group for youths and one time they were doing some excursion where tickets were age-dependant (discount for under 26s). The admin asked the people wanting tickets to post their names and DOB, and there were maybe 50 replies to that post with the asked information...
I'm considering purchasing one. In general, I value convenience and personalization over privacy. I completely don't relate to the idea of relevant ads being a bad thing.
Anyways, as someone who spends a lot of time panning a laptop or iPad to track a toddler who is FaceTiming grandma, this device solves an important problem for us.
Anyways, as someone who spends a lot of time panning a laptop or iPad to track a toddler who is FaceTiming grandma, this device solves an important problem for us.
The problem is it doesn't end with relevant ads. It doesn't even end with Cambridge Analytica. The business model of Facebook is absolutely clear. You are the product and the currency is you. If they can convert that to real $ they'll do it by any means without thinking about the implications. FB has proven again and again that they are incapable of considering or do not want to consider the wider implications of their actions. It's absolutely toxic and your actions today will define the future your children will be living in tomorrow. I personally think that it would be great if that future wasn't 1984 on steroids.
I think this is the truth of the world we live in. People want this stuff so bad that they are willing to give away a lot in exchange.
The other component is apathy, many people are just resigned to the fact that they will be surveilled one way or another.
I can foresee huge implications for all of this, it doesn't take much to get from here to using these devices to aid law enforcement. I know the argument is 'if you have nothing to hide... it keeps the kids safe...' but it all smells of a conformist dystopia.
Edit: I have a bunch of Google Homes, I count myself in the apathetic group, sadly.
The other component is apathy, many people are just resigned to the fact that they will be surveilled one way or another.
I can foresee huge implications for all of this, it doesn't take much to get from here to using these devices to aid law enforcement. I know the argument is 'if you have nothing to hide... it keeps the kids safe...' but it all smells of a conformist dystopia.
Edit: I have a bunch of Google Homes, I count myself in the apathetic group, sadly.
I think there are also acceptable trade-offs.
The video is encrypted and content from the call cannot be used. If this was not the case I wouldn't buy it.
The other things they say they'll use from it are in line with what I already expect from having a FB account in the first place.
The portal even has a built in camera cover/off switch in hardware.
The video is encrypted and content from the call cannot be used. If this was not the case I wouldn't buy it.
The other things they say they'll use from it are in line with what I already expect from having a FB account in the first place.
The portal even has a built in camera cover/off switch in hardware.
> It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assistant space in my opinion.
I loved my Zune. I wouldn't touch a Portal with a 39.5' pole.
I loved my Zune. I wouldn't touch a Portal with a 39.5' pole.
I agree, but it's not very different from Alexa or Google Home, and people are buying those, for some reason.
Why is owning an Amazon Echo any worse for privacy than owning a smartphone?
People have purchased - and installed - Google Home (and Mini's) and Alexa's in their homes. They think they're "cute", and offer a valuable service to them. They are a microphone controlled by data raping giants.
People use "Assistants" and enable full tracking technologies on their devices ("See how great it is Google has your every location on a map for the last decade").
People have not only accepted but embraced a full surveillance and tracking society; even if YOU don't accept it, you're part of it, people may add your contact to their phone that will be gobbled up in seconds by Facebook/Google/et al.
People don't care. End of story.
People use "Assistants" and enable full tracking technologies on their devices ("See how great it is Google has your every location on a map for the last decade").
People have not only accepted but embraced a full surveillance and tracking society; even if YOU don't accept it, you're part of it, people may add your contact to their phone that will be gobbled up in seconds by Facebook/Google/et al.
People don't care. End of story.
I don't think it is. The difference is that Gmail/Amazon aren't hated the same way as Facebook is. People aren't smart about surveillance, they're not smart enough to realize that giving Instagram access to their phone is a bad idea.
But, there are 2 perfectly capable home assistants on the market today that (right or wrong) aren't part of the same consumer-level narrative about privacy, and people like simple, straightforward, black-and-white narratives, like "Facebook cameras in your house are watching your child so that targeted ads can turn them into a nazi." That's a simple story, it's easy to remember and think about. Even ordinary, privacy-uneducated users like that story.
It's totally feasible to me that this device will flop due to privacy concerns. Scanning around quickly online, I can't see a single positive review (even from mainstream publications) that doesn't end with, "but of course Facebook is evil and you'd have to be stupid to trust them with a camera in your house."
I suspect Facebook just lost the narrative on this. They should have called it "Instagram Portal", and then the consumer situation would be completely different.
Most of my siblings have Alexa devices in their house. It's a privacy nightmare, but they don't care. Even so, none of them would be dumb enough to buy a Facebook portal. It's not even a sacrifice -- Alexa/Google work with more devices and have more features.
But, there are 2 perfectly capable home assistants on the market today that (right or wrong) aren't part of the same consumer-level narrative about privacy, and people like simple, straightforward, black-and-white narratives, like "Facebook cameras in your house are watching your child so that targeted ads can turn them into a nazi." That's a simple story, it's easy to remember and think about. Even ordinary, privacy-uneducated users like that story.
It's totally feasible to me that this device will flop due to privacy concerns. Scanning around quickly online, I can't see a single positive review (even from mainstream publications) that doesn't end with, "but of course Facebook is evil and you'd have to be stupid to trust them with a camera in your house."
I suspect Facebook just lost the narrative on this. They should have called it "Instagram Portal", and then the consumer situation would be completely different.
Most of my siblings have Alexa devices in their house. It's a privacy nightmare, but they don't care. Even so, none of them would be dumb enough to buy a Facebook portal. It's not even a sacrifice -- Alexa/Google work with more devices and have more features.
>People aren't smart about surveillance, they're not smart enough to realize that giving Instagram access to their phone is a bad idea
I've seen this argument a lot, the issue is not people are not smart enough but people have different value toward privacy. I understand tech and yet I'm fine and even supporting this kind of tech. I understand its really hard and sucks to be in the side where you think is nightmare but other people think is not an issue. But thats the reality, people can have different value.
I've seen this argument a lot, the issue is not people are not smart enough but people have different value toward privacy. I understand tech and yet I'm fine and even supporting this kind of tech. I understand its really hard and sucks to be in the side where you think is nightmare but other people think is not an issue. But thats the reality, people can have different value.
Why is owning an Echo device any more of a privacy nightmare than owning a smartphone? The Echo is not always listening/recording; it is activated by a wake word.
First, the Echo is always listening for a wakeword, and just because of the inherent limitations of the device, will occasionally get wakewords wrong. By default, Android phones don't listen to wakewords when locked, and can be easily configured to require a button press before listening.
Second, the microphone on your smartphone is less powerful than the microphone on your Echo, and your smartphone isn't omnipresent in every room of your house simultaneously, including guest bedrooms.
Third, (opinion me) Amazon is a slightly less trustworthy company than Google, and a much less trustworthy company than Apple.
And finally, you can outright turn off assistants on your phone (and should). An always-on virtual assistant run by Google that always listens even when your phone is locked is also a privacy nightmare, but there's pretty much no reason to have that.
If you're paranoid about the security of carrying a microphone that could be enabled via software at any time, you can also install a custom ROM on your Android device that uninstalls Google Assistant and non-FOSS software entirely. LineageOS is really good, I highly recommend it -- it's just not feasible to install for regular, nontechnical consumers.
Second, the microphone on your smartphone is less powerful than the microphone on your Echo, and your smartphone isn't omnipresent in every room of your house simultaneously, including guest bedrooms.
Third, (opinion me) Amazon is a slightly less trustworthy company than Google, and a much less trustworthy company than Apple.
And finally, you can outright turn off assistants on your phone (and should). An always-on virtual assistant run by Google that always listens even when your phone is locked is also a privacy nightmare, but there's pretty much no reason to have that.
If you're paranoid about the security of carrying a microphone that could be enabled via software at any time, you can also install a custom ROM on your Android device that uninstalls Google Assistant and non-FOSS software entirely. LineageOS is really good, I highly recommend it -- it's just not feasible to install for regular, nontechnical consumers.
There were multiple instances of Echo waking up when the user didn't utter the wake word.
And smartphones are immune to misrecognizing "Hey, Siri" ?
[deleted]
So, in other words, Echo is always listening for that wake word?
Sort of. AFAIK it's listening with a dedicated circuit that only recognizes the specific word, not with a general-purpose listening device.
Again, how is this different from a smartphone that will wake up when you say "Hey Siri" ?
Again, how is this different from a smartphone that will wake up when you say "Hey Siri" ?
They don't need to deduce anything, I'm already doing that when I visit the bathroom.
You are clearly not their target audience. Really zune if living room space, come on man.
Zune was awesome. It was a phenomenal device, and anybody who owned one would tell you that.
https://medium.com/@shiriendamra/why-the-zune-failed-1327845...
TLDR: iPod already dominated the market, and the zune wasn't marketed aggressively enough.
https://medium.com/@shiriendamra/why-the-zune-failed-1327845...
TLDR: iPod already dominated the market, and the zune wasn't marketed aggressively enough.
>I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home
And yet Alexa, Siri etc are fine to many
And yet Alexa, Siri etc are fine to many
sojmq(4)
This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy!
This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but this is misleading.
This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but this is misleading.
Security and privacy are two different but related things. Security can help some privacy issues such as encryption stopping others from snooping. It does not include first party privacy issues though.
Facebook has a history of privacy issues (hence the comment on the fine).
File under things that are always left unanswered... what about the content the device picks up when it's not in a call? Like a TV show in the background, a song playing from a different device, or something else. What is allowed but not said can be important. It would be nice to have a research outfit who tested these kinds of things.
Facebook has a history of privacy issues (hence the comment on the fine).
File under things that are always left unanswered... what about the content the device picks up when it's not in a call? Like a TV show in the background, a song playing from a different device, or something else. What is allowed but not said can be important. It would be nice to have a research outfit who tested these kinds of things.
Right below "Minimum Security Standards" is "Can it snoop on me?"
Camera: Yes
Microphone: Yes
Tracks location: Yes
Further down it ends with "Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. [..] The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you. In the past--from Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO"
Camera: Yes
Microphone: Yes
Tracks location: Yes
Further down it ends with "Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. [..] The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal [sic] of collecting on you. In the past--from Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO"
I fully understand the scepticism around this product. That said, this section feels incomplete. It would be valuable to assess if there are physical controls to turn off both the camera and microphone or a physical camera cover. I think Facebook wisely chose to include that while similar products like the Nest Hub Max didn't. Even if I distrust Facebook more than Google, the Portal seems to have a clear privacy advantage on the Camera front.
Very much so. It's also not included in the original title, so not much of an excuse here.
If "Facebook Portal" is not descriptive enough, a case might be made for minor editorializing, but e.g. "Facebook Portal: Privacy Assessment" would be much less (mis)leading.
If "Facebook Portal" is not descriptive enough, a case might be made for minor editorializing, but e.g. "Facebook Portal: Privacy Assessment" would be much less (mis)leading.
Yeah I’ve seen this twice now for the portal (some CNET article saying people shouldn’t buy it, but not actually reviewing the hardware).
It’s annoying because the portal hardware is actually really great. I got the big one for my mom and I have the TV one and they work extremely well. I was looking for something that did what the portal does on the consumer market about a year before it came out and nothing existed.
This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics and most of it isn’t particularly in depth or accurate.
It’s annoying because the portal hardware is actually really great. I got the big one for my mom and I have the TV one and they work extremely well. I was looking for something that did what the portal does on the consumer market about a year before it came out and nothing existed.
This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics and most of it isn’t particularly in depth or accurate.
> This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics
Some of it is politics, but some of it is Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly lying through his teeth about failing to protect users' privacy. At a certain point, it stops sounding accidental. At worst, it was malicious enough that they were fined $5B for it (and should have been fined more).
If you're going to make the claim that Facebook is not as malicious as everyone says, you're making the more extreme and difficult to believe claim, and you should cite some sources. As it is, it just sounds like you're not interested in reading about their abuses even superficially.
Some of it is politics, but some of it is Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly lying through his teeth about failing to protect users' privacy. At a certain point, it stops sounding accidental. At worst, it was malicious enough that they were fined $5B for it (and should have been fined more).
If you're going to make the claim that Facebook is not as malicious as everyone says, you're making the more extreme and difficult to believe claim, and you should cite some sources. As it is, it just sounds like you're not interested in reading about their abuses even superficially.
I have to prove a negative?
Whenever there is a big FB story I try and figure out what actually happened. This is often difficult because 95% of the media reporting on it is either entirely wrong, intentionally misleading, or both.
For the recent Cambridge Analytica thing my take away was that a shady third party (CA) violated FB’s TOS by exploiting a vulnerability in their API that FB had sinced locked down. Cambridge Analytica used that to pull more data from the social graph than they should have been allowed to (after a subset of users participated in scammy quizzes) in order to do stupid things with that data.
When I’ve read the rare detailed reporting from FB’s response [0] about how they’re reacting to issues I’ve been impressed.
Zuckerberg’s comments to the public are also pretty detailed and nuanced - atypically rare for a public facing CEO under massive persistent scrutiny.
This is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends that work there.
[0]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...
Whenever there is a big FB story I try and figure out what actually happened. This is often difficult because 95% of the media reporting on it is either entirely wrong, intentionally misleading, or both.
For the recent Cambridge Analytica thing my take away was that a shady third party (CA) violated FB’s TOS by exploiting a vulnerability in their API that FB had sinced locked down. Cambridge Analytica used that to pull more data from the social graph than they should have been allowed to (after a subset of users participated in scammy quizzes) in order to do stupid things with that data.
When I’ve read the rare detailed reporting from FB’s response [0] about how they’re reacting to issues I’ve been impressed.
Zuckerberg’s comments to the public are also pretty detailed and nuanced - atypically rare for a public facing CEO under massive persistent scrutiny.
This is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends that work there.
[0]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...
The locking down of the API is done to prevent competition, while being publicly framed as a privacy enhancing scheme.
> The Switcharoo Plan turned out to be an idea whereby Facebook executives would deprecate various APIs that its developer partners depended on for fear that those developers would one day compete with Facebook directly, while publicly announcing that the changes were intended to promote privacy.
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/8/20953623/facebo...
Nothing Facebook says publicly should be trusted.
> The Switcharoo Plan turned out to be an idea whereby Facebook executives would deprecate various APIs that its developer partners depended on for fear that those developers would one day compete with Facebook directly, while publicly announcing that the changes were intended to promote privacy.
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/8/20953623/facebo...
Nothing Facebook says publicly should be trusted.
It can be both - the Reuters link in that verge article is a little better: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-antitrust/facebo...
FB can be concerned about apps like Pikini that damage their brand and concerned about other companies trying to leverage their data in order to build a competitor.
This is a little hard to reason about fairly given the context that the document leak was targeted to make FB look bad by lawyers that had an agenda around a current anti-trust lawsuit from a client that used FB user data to make a bikini photo finding app (not the most ethical bunch).
That said, I'd argue there's no reason FB should have to allow API access to a company that directly conflicts with FB's interests, particularly when they're trying to take FB's data to build a replacement (and it looks like it would trigger some sort of contract discussion initially anyway). A lot of companies remove third party API access for a number of reasons and this ability is typically explicitly specified in the terms of the API access agreement.
Framing it around a privacy narrative to avoid media backlash around API deprecation is trying to get a handle on PR - I prefer when companies are just direct, but given the risk around bad media coverage I can see why they did it.
This entire issue is somewhat distinct from what I was talking about in the Cambridge Analytica case which I think was a bug in the social graph (they were not supposed to be able to crawl as much of it as they could) and this bug was fixed prior (I think years prior?) to the whistleblower from CA releasing details. My understanding was that accessing the data, while technically possible due to the bug, was still in violation of TOS.
FB can be concerned about apps like Pikini that damage their brand and concerned about other companies trying to leverage their data in order to build a competitor.
This is a little hard to reason about fairly given the context that the document leak was targeted to make FB look bad by lawyers that had an agenda around a current anti-trust lawsuit from a client that used FB user data to make a bikini photo finding app (not the most ethical bunch).
That said, I'd argue there's no reason FB should have to allow API access to a company that directly conflicts with FB's interests, particularly when they're trying to take FB's data to build a replacement (and it looks like it would trigger some sort of contract discussion initially anyway). A lot of companies remove third party API access for a number of reasons and this ability is typically explicitly specified in the terms of the API access agreement.
Framing it around a privacy narrative to avoid media backlash around API deprecation is trying to get a handle on PR - I prefer when companies are just direct, but given the risk around bad media coverage I can see why they did it.
This entire issue is somewhat distinct from what I was talking about in the Cambridge Analytica case which I think was a bug in the social graph (they were not supposed to be able to crawl as much of it as they could) and this bug was fixed prior (I think years prior?) to the whistleblower from CA releasing details. My understanding was that accessing the data, while technically possible due to the bug, was still in violation of TOS.
How does the picture look on the TV one, like does it look like a decent enough, crisp HD image? (And on what size TV are you running it?)
I run it on a 65" 4k TV (specifically the LG E6 OLED) - it looks sharp and does a good job, but I do have it sitting next to the wireless access point.
Also since I mostly communicate with my mom who is using her big portal the quality is pretty good (since the camera on that one is pretty good).
Also since I mostly communicate with my mom who is using her big portal the quality is pretty good (since the camera on that one is pretty good).
You've looked at the security features (which, as sibling comment points out, is related to, but not the same as privacy), and stopped short of reading the full privacy review.
A lot of commenters have made the same mistake, so perhaps this is useful UX feedback for Mozilla.
The title however, is NOT misleading. To copypaste the parts nobody seems to be reading:
A lot of commenters have made the same mistake, so perhaps this is useful UX feedback for Mozilla.
The title however, is NOT misleading. To copypaste the parts nobody seems to be reading:
Can it snoop on me?
Camera: Yes
Microphone: Yes
Tracks Location: Yes
How does it handle privacy
How does it share data?
data about your Portal usage –
how often you do video calls, what
apps you open, what features you
use – can be used to target you with
advertisements across Facebook. The
company may also share specific
demographic and audience engagement
data with advertisers and analytics
partners.
Collects biometrics data? Yes
User friendly privacy info? NoThere is even more on that website:
What could happen if something went wrong
Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. They've faced record fines for this and have been caught
hiding privacy breaches from their users. This is the starting point for bringing a device with an AI-powered smart camera
and always listening microphone that is sending data back to Facebook regularly. They also say they do human review of audio
snippets unless you chose (and take the time to figure out how) to opt out. The question comes down to, does Facebook have
your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal of collecting on you. In the past--from
Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO.I find Mozilla's editorializing in the little blurbs at the top of each page to be kind of problematic as well. It seems like they came up with an objective set of standards, but it turns out those standards didn't quite fit the narrative they wanted to put forth.
I'm no fan of Facebook, but if you want to point out their privacy shortcomings, come up with a stronger set of standards and apply them to all the products. Don't take cheap shots at them at the top of a page that gives them 5 stars.
I'm no fan of Facebook, but if you want to point out their privacy shortcomings, come up with a stronger set of standards and apply them to all the products. Don't take cheap shots at them at the top of a page that gives them 5 stars.
I agree that the privacynotincluded site should have a broader set of standards but I really commend them for investing resources into tackling the truth of the huge amount of surveillance built in to a lot of these products these days. Hopefully they can improve the UI in future as it is a bit confusing. However the main takeaway at the bottom should be understood:
"Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. They've faced record fines for this and have been caught hiding privacy breaches from their users. This is the starting point for bringing a device with an AI-powered smart camera and always listening microphone that is sending data back to Facebook regularly. They also say they do human review of audio snippets unless you chose (and take the time to figure out how) to opt out. The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capable (*fixed typo) of collecting on you. In the past--from Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO."
"Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. They've faced record fines for this and have been caught hiding privacy breaches from their users. This is the starting point for bringing a device with an AI-powered smart camera and always listening microphone that is sending data back to Facebook regularly. They also say they do human review of audio snippets unless you chose (and take the time to figure out how) to opt out. The question comes down to, does Facebook have your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capable (*fixed typo) of collecting on you. In the past--from Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO."
To be fair, the "minimum security standards" are a very low bar.
I hope the public soon realizes that harvesting metadata is just as valuable to advertisers as the actual content of your messages. In fact, it's arguably more valuable since you can discern all of the details without any of the regulations.
E2E Encryption is ad tech's latest sleight-of-hand. Everything, including the metadata, should be encrypted. It's otherwise pointless.
I hope the public soon realizes that harvesting metadata is just as valuable to advertisers as the actual content of your messages. In fact, it's arguably more valuable since you can discern all of the details without any of the regulations.
E2E Encryption is ad tech's latest sleight-of-hand. Everything, including the metadata, should be encrypted. It's otherwise pointless.
What metadata has yet to and can be encrypted? The recipient, the send time and the message size seem impossible to encrypt.
I think the better question is, "What could count as metadata that we don't have to encrypt?"
But to answer yours: https://github.com/vuvuzela/vuvuzela
Encrypting metadata is a huge challenge. In the meantime, our best bet is to use open-source systems that we know won't be harvesting metadata.
But to answer yours: https://github.com/vuvuzela/vuvuzela
Encrypting metadata is a huge challenge. In the meantime, our best bet is to use open-source systems that we know won't be harvesting metadata.
I wonder what the consequences would be if after a few years Facebook just decided to disable E2E encryption and all those privacy features, and started collecting and using all that data for advertising purposes contrary to what they're claiming now?
Another $5 billion fine? $10 billion? $100 billion? If enough people buy it, it could still be a profitable endeavor.
Although I'm sure we can trust Facebook not to do that. They certainly deserve it /s
Another $5 billion fine? $10 billion? $100 billion? If enough people buy it, it could still be a profitable endeavor.
Although I'm sure we can trust Facebook not to do that. They certainly deserve it /s
Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past.
It is in their terms if they choose.
It is in their terms if they choose.
It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.
“Only 300,000”
You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)?
Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.
You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)?
Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.
It's a joke and also Facebook's press releases almost verbatim :)
Its only Cincinnati...
Keep reading.
Pretty sure they were joking
I’d this a joke lacking /s, or a genuine post?
That's pretty impressive. Only 300 000 users affected & still promising to do better next year!
Yeah, the politics around Facebook are tiring...turns out when they gave everybody the power to connect they also gave the tinfoil hats that power
We have two portals here at home and almost everyone I know who wants to stay in touch with their families has one too. Specially the kids love it!
We have two portals here at home and almost everyone I know who wants to stay in touch with their families has one too. Specially the kids love it!
Facebook's $5B fine and current antitrust investigation are far beyond the realm of tinfoil hats.
This is a site in which Breitbart, a well know white nationalist propaganda site is marked as a trusted source for news. Zuck has met privately with conservative pundits. There is reason to be alarmed and skeptical of Facebook.
Stop! Don't mark them as reputably just because they meet with conservatives.
Breitbart is not reliable, and that should reduce Facebook's trust, but meetings conservatives should not. Conservatives have long accused facebook of ignoring them, so when facebook stops ignoring them, we should not demonize them.
Everything is fine if you just remove sentence 2.
Breitbart is not reliable, and that should reduce Facebook's trust, but meetings conservatives should not. Conservatives have long accused facebook of ignoring them, so when facebook stops ignoring them, we should not demonize them.
Everything is fine if you just remove sentence 2.
Mozilla knows their products are falling behind and will probably continue to do so as long as they maintain their current trajectory. The only other strategy is to compete via PR.
Falling behind in what way?
HN clickbait
The Muppets pushing anything is and already was obscene (Kermit sipping Lipton meme, anyone?). Their first feature film, which is roughly as old as I am, revolved around Kermit following his dream and specifically not selling out his own species by making an advertisement.
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-the-muppets-cant-m...