Facebook and Instagram Ban Developers From Using Data For Surveillance (theguardian.com) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook and Instagram have banned developers from using their data for surveillance with a new privacy policy that civil rights activists have long sought to curb spying by law enforcement. Following revelations last year that police departments had gained special access to the social networks to track protesters, Facebook, which owns Instagram, announced on Monday that it had updated its rules to state that developers could not "use data obtained from us to provide tools that are used for surveillance." The American Civil Liberties Union obtained government records last year revealing that Facebook, Instagram and Twitter had provided users' data to a software company that aids police surveillance programs and had helped law enforcement monitor Black Lives Matter demonstrations. The ACLU found that the social networking sites had given "special access" to Geofeedia, a controversial startup that has partnered with law enforcement to track streams of user content. "Our goal is to make our policy explicit," Facebook said in its announcement on Monday. "Over the past several months we have taken enforcement action against developers who created and marketed tools meant for surveillance, in violation of our existing policies; we want to be sure everyone understands the underlying policy and how to comply."
Re: (Score:3)
TOO LATE! (Score:1)
The cat's out of the bag now, jokers! Good luck stuffing it back in there. Eventually everyone else will realize you should have built privacy into the API.
it's just snakeoil anyways. (Score:2)
ugh.. it is actually built into the api, at least for general run of the mill 3rd party developers. it's not like you can just sign up as a developer and get access to random peoples privately shared data.
now if you sign up and okay access for a "please surveillance me" app then.. well, duh.
the stuff you can get without permissions you can get via regular http/web anyways, if the target has chosen to do so. which of course begs the question wtf are geofeedia etc selling. my bet is that they're selling 99.99
FALSE. (Score:1)
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
Absolutely none of this stuff can be gotten "via regular http/web." Through Facebook, the "permission" you refer to consists me
Well that's rich (Score:5, Insightful)
They're going to have to ban their own developers, too. Facebook and Instagram are surveillance platforms for marketing companies.
Re: Well that's rich (Score:1)
"Only WE can do surveillance!"
surveillance: watching what someone does. Facebook (Score:2)
Me thinks we're going to need some definitions here.
surveillance: Keeping an eye on what someone does.
Facebook: A way to keep an eye on what people do.
Never mind marketing, though that's a good point too, the whole purpose of Facebook is to see what people are up to. On Twitter they even use the word "follow someone". Just like if you're doing surveillance on foot you might follow someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah doublespeak "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], will serve the just fine.
Far more accurate headline would be "Facebook and Instagram launch marketing program to trick their users into believing they are no longer being monitored, analysed and targeting with selected manipulative marketing".
One thing I am really curious about is why people think it is OK for corporations to spy on them in ways t
Marketers don't send SWAT teams (Score:2)
Marketers trying to sell you something don't send a SWAT team if you tell them no. Say "no" to the government (and stick to that answer), they'll send a heavily armed squad for you, after they confiscate your bank account etc. The government is by far the worst of the goon squads.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:1)
So, let me get this straight, Twitter & Facebook think they can tell the government what to do now?
I'm sure the CIA will just take "no" for an answer quietly. They won't just write an NSL saying shut up, do this, and tell no one.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a complete assessment.
The ruination of the Internet is monetization.
When the userbase crossed the threshold of critical mass, businesses realized that, whatever their demographic, new customers were online.
That was, and will continue to be, the end.
For you and I to complain about it would be like a can of Coke bitching about being red.
We have valuable assets that we cannot sell.
what a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
This 'ban' will not stand up to an NSL..
Re: (Score:1)
this was never about not cooperating with law enforcement. This is FB's way of cutting out the middleman. If law enforcement wants FB's data, they simply go through FB. FB is merely trying to stop the monetization of their own data by 3rd parties. I'm sure FB will try to sell the service to law enforcement for an amount similar to the 3rd parties. This isn't about privacy, its about protection of their profits.
"Rule" ? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, a "rule" ??
Well, okay. Sure. That'll work.
/insert Gene Wilder/Wonka meme here
I'm sure the CIA will get right on that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want the monopoly. (Score:1)
They want the monopoly.
Whohoohoo (Score:2)
April fools day came in March this year..
Seriously, what is Facebook going to do? Give them a mean look or something?
Alternative Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Facebook and Instagram Want Clients To Buy Their Surveillance Data
Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since US law during the time of Dr. King made clear that black lives did not matter, and since various law enforcement agencies since his time made clear that black lives did not matter to them, equating Martin Luther King's work with that of the contemporary "Black Lives Matter" political movement seems completely reasonable. Dr. King focused, with very good reason, on the injustices against his community. He and the movement he led collaborated with, but not primarily focus on, other disadvantaged groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Every life matters, color is not relevant.
Are you having trouble with the above sentence?
Whether you agree with the analysis or not, the idea is that currently black lives are not seen (by the police/authorities) to matter as much as white lives, therefore the group wants to promote black lives to equality with white lives.
Isn't this the point of FB? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement that does not follow the law is just a bunch of armed and dangerous thugs. Sadly, this thing has become the norm again.
"Banned" = "we told them to be good" (Score:2)
Effect: Nothing. Why is this even worth a story?
Just for show (Score:3)
It won't actually accomplish anything but it allows the companies to tell their data sources, aka customers, that the companies are looking out for their interests. A couple of the smaller developers working out of their homes will be shut out to prove that the new rules are working but the larger shops and the government will continue working as usual.
I bet they'll allow espionage of conservatives. (Score:2)
Given their history of selective enforcement, this will only apply to anything deemed a threat to leftist narratives.
FALSE. (Score:1)
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
Re: (Score:1)
(meant as a reply to the snakeoil post above)