Facebook Does Not Use Your Phone’s Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories(newsroom.fb.com)
newsroom.fb.com
Facebook Does Not Use Your Phone’s Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/facebook-does-not-use-your-phones-microphone-for-ads-or-news-feed-stories/
50 comments
What is particularly bothersome about Obama is that he is very good at misleading with lying. He says "NSA cannot target your e-mails" when he knows that NSA is actively collecting emails, but not by specifically targeting.
I'm sure his staff are the ones that come up with the exact wording, but he's definitely partly to blame.
Truly the most transparent administration in history.
Any examples of ones that were more transparent?
Many, I believe, even as quite the Obama-fan. Secret courts & laws is a pretty recent development, so is the reliance on controlled social media vs. uncontrollable media.
I just met George Packer (writer @Atlantic) who said the greatest failure of Obama may end up not dramatically downscaling the scope of the Oval office while he still had the chance. The office has grown so powerful it's a dangerous tool in the hands of anyone less benevolent than the current officeholder.
I just met George Packer (writer @Atlantic) who said the greatest failure of Obama may end up not dramatically downscaling the scope of the Oval office while he still had the chance. The office has grown so powerful it's a dangerous tool in the hands of anyone less benevolent than the current officeholder.
Any of them from the past few decades. Obama's administration has made secret courts and laws more common than ever before while prosecuting a record number of whistleblowers.
[deleted]
"Does not use your microphone (..) to inform ads or change what you see in news feed" leaves a lot of room for other uses. Does it change what you see in other places? Does it affect your advertisement preferences without notifying the advertisers? (what does "inform ads" even mean?)
Why not just say "Does not use your microphone without tapping a record button" (and make sure it's implemented like that).
Why not just say "Does not use your microphone without tapping a record button" (and make sure it's implemented like that).
>Why not just say "Does not use your microphone without tapping a record button" (and make sure it's implemented like that).
Because it does. From the article:
"We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates."
Because it does. From the article:
"We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates."
No it doesn't.
"Might include..."
They want you understand that without having to be pinned to having said it. This is really carefully worded to get you to think exactly what you did. Why not just say "Doesn't use your microphone without tapping a record button"? It's reasonable to assume because that statement would be false.
"Might include..."
They want you understand that without having to be pinned to having said it. This is really carefully worded to get you to think exactly what you did. Why not just say "Doesn't use your microphone without tapping a record button"? It's reasonable to assume because that statement would be false.
What you are quoting is basically saying they'll use your microphone for anything they can think of, because obviously using the microphone is related to audio. To spell it out, tailoring content based on what they hear is a "feature that requires audio". The permission part they mention is an iOS restriction they can't get around.
A classic example of an "overspecific dementi",a complex answer where a simple one would have sufficed. However, in their defense, maybe this is the type of statement that expensive legal departments deliver by default as they consider it 'simple' and 'direct' compared to the stuff they usually write?
I think these rumors are just a side effect of how good these companies can be at predicting what you are, or will be, interested in. People think it must be listening in when it is just using other bits of info about you.
Like when Target knew the guy's daughter was pregnant before he did: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-t...
Like when Target knew the guy's daughter was pregnant before he did: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-t...
Coming after "Facebook doesn't have bias in news" and "Facebook news is purely algorithmically generated", hopefully this will give people pause.
Soon to be followed by "Upon further review, some developers may have abused the microphone permission and used it for internally unauthorized purposes."
Facebook manages the public and private lives of over a billion people and is publicly traded. They will use the former every way legal plausibly deniable to help the latter.
This much power, I'm surprised that people are surprised. At this scale, I'd put a high estimation that there are multiple abuses from: 1) Private citizens who work there 2) Hackers with undisclosed access to their infrastructure 3) Governments around the world that have jurisdiction to suboena them 4) Governments that they want curry favor with (ie Germany, EU, USA)
I would guess that there were breaches that would be a scandal but, were caught quietly and handled internally and never made it out.
They have billions of dollars in the bank, some of the smartest people on the planet and a CEO that wants to change the world.
It's not like a conspiracy. It's just simple math. With software written by humans being as fragile and imperfect as it is and that much information as centralized as it is, it's crazy to trust that it's always stayed safe in the hands of Facebook and that your view of the world through Facebook's filter isn't being changed at all.
This much power, I'm surprised that people are surprised. At this scale, I'd put a high estimation that there are multiple abuses from: 1) Private citizens who work there 2) Hackers with undisclosed access to their infrastructure 3) Governments around the world that have jurisdiction to suboena them 4) Governments that they want curry favor with (ie Germany, EU, USA)
I would guess that there were breaches that would be a scandal but, were caught quietly and handled internally and never made it out.
They have billions of dollars in the bank, some of the smartest people on the planet and a CEO that wants to change the world.
It's not like a conspiracy. It's just simple math. With software written by humans being as fragile and imperfect as it is and that much information as centralized as it is, it's crazy to trust that it's always stayed safe in the hands of Facebook and that your view of the world through Facebook's filter isn't being changed at all.
That's a pretty good blanket statement, hard to see how they could be twisting words here except as jvehent said, they may in the future.
That being said, it is unsettling they have the feature. A lot of people, me included, were upset when Google started reading our emails for ads. Slowly, people started accepting that was the norm, and there is a lot less fuss over it now, bigger other battles to fight with the NSA and other privacy issues.
Whose to say what we say out loud is more private than emails? It really could be a matter of time until that expectation of privacy of the spoken word is diminished with the rise of Alex and the like.
That being said, it is unsettling they have the feature. A lot of people, me included, were upset when Google started reading our emails for ads. Slowly, people started accepting that was the norm, and there is a lot less fuss over it now, bigger other battles to fight with the NSA and other privacy issues.
Whose to say what we say out loud is more private than emails? It really could be a matter of time until that expectation of privacy of the spoken word is diminished with the rise of Alex and the like.
Has it ever been the case that Gmail didn't use email content for ads?
I'm pretty sure they didn't when it first started in the early 00's, and it was sort of big news when they explicitly updated their terms to say they did as recently as 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca...
That being said, it is unsettling they have the feature.
What feature do they have?
What feature do they have?
There are a lot of useful things a smartphone could do with an always on microphone. It could hear you arranging to meet up with a friend, and offer to create a reminder based on the details. It could warn you if the restaurant you're going to is closed. It could keep notes on all your conversations for all those times you forget something your friend said yesterday.
It could be pretty awesome, if only we could trust anyone to do this kind of thing.
It could be pretty awesome, if only we could trust anyone to do this kind of thing.
There's the rub, I think the NSA revelations and everyone collaborating with them, wittingly or unwittingly, proves we never can.
Why do phones, tablets, laptops, etc., not come at the very least as an option in a form WITHOUT integrated microphones, and with cappable lenses?
If I want a mic, I'll plug in a goddamned headset.
If I want a mic, I'll plug in a goddamned headset.
Of course not.
Audio processing is handled by a third party.
Audio processing is handled by a third party.
Assuming they're honest here, is it possible it's other apps tapping the microphone, correlating it with your Facebook account, and somehow placing items in your newsfeed/etc.? I'm not familiar with the capabilities of FB ad platform to know if this is feasible. Otherwise, like someone else here said, it's probably contracted out to a third-party doing the mic listening.
I've always said Facebook is a government agents, pedophiles, stalkers and burglars dream come true. All that information freely given away to whoever wishes to collect it. Now with the audio video aspect, Facebook can branch out into amateur porn.
Facebook Does Not Use Your Phone's Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories...
...right now.
...right now.
Beyond what everyone else is saying about the limitations on what the actual language indicates, both the length and the tone of this message sound questionable...
This is the kind of comment you could just post for any article without reading it.
So what do they use the data for?
Said facebook.
That's awfully specific.
That's awfully specific.
Is that why it's asking me to use it everytime I somehow end up tapping "Send a audio message" button?
Peter Thiel approved this message.
(http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100652-Facebook-CE...)
Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
Yes, always take the private chat logs of a socially awkward guy in his early twenties trying to sound flippant/cool in front of his friend as a complete and eternal expression of someone's innermost character. How substantive, how insightful!
And in fairness, there are very few people from 18-25 who would not be classified as "dumb" when it comes to thinking through privacy, consequences, and boundaries.
And in fairness, there are very few people from 18-25 who would not be classified as "dumb" when it comes to thinking through privacy, consequences, and boundaries.
yet
No, it doesn't, because it will never be installed on my phone!
I can't prove whether or not the Facebook app is listening and reporting back to the mothership, however I do know that I've seen my battery life more than double since I deleted the FB app and switched to using the mobile website (which is extremely well implemented, btw) instead.
After removing the FB app, FB Messenger app, Instagram (which I never used anyway) and WhatsApp (ditto), I've gone from 20-30 hours between charges to 60-70 hours between charges. This is on an iPhone 6 that admittedly isn't used for much more than SMS, RSS, music in the car, and light browsing. Now, I can't say with certainty that removing those apps removed any battery-hogging 24/7 microphone monitoring, but no matter what it's clear the FB apps were draining the battery. Again, I'm still accessing FB just as much as I did before (about twice a day, for about 10 minutes at a time) but it's via the web browser.
Also, my data use has dropped, though not as significantly as battery life; where I was using about 1.5GB of data per month, now I'm just under 1GB/month (estimated based on the ~450MB used in the two weeks I've been FB-free)
After removing the FB app, FB Messenger app, Instagram (which I never used anyway) and WhatsApp (ditto), I've gone from 20-30 hours between charges to 60-70 hours between charges. This is on an iPhone 6 that admittedly isn't used for much more than SMS, RSS, music in the car, and light browsing. Now, I can't say with certainty that removing those apps removed any battery-hogging 24/7 microphone monitoring, but no matter what it's clear the FB apps were draining the battery. Again, I'm still accessing FB just as much as I did before (about twice a day, for about 10 minutes at a time) but it's via the web browser.
Also, my data use has dropped, though not as significantly as battery life; where I was using about 1.5GB of data per month, now I'm just under 1GB/month (estimated based on the ~450MB used in the two weeks I've been FB-free)
This is one of the reasons I won't install them. The other is I have severe privacy concerns well before any idea that it might be listening - FB are always trying to scrape more data from you anyway, letting them have access to lots more by being resident on the phone seems a bad plan.
Facebook Does Not Use Your Phone’s Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories Yet
Let me fix that for you: "Facebook Does Not [yet] Use Your Phone’s Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories"
“What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails.” President Obama, June 16, 2013, on the Charlie Rose Show
During a March 12, 2013, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden asked DNI Clapper if the NSA collected any type of data on millions of Americans. Clapper said: “No, sir.”
“We don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.” DNI Clapper speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on July 9, 2012
“Provides the government the same authority in national security investigations to obtain physical records that exits in an ordinary criminal case, through a grand jury subpoena.” Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein speaking on the Senate floor on May 22, 2011