Facebook Accused of Using Your Phone To Wiretap Snapchat (gizmodo.com) 58
Court filings unsealed last week allege Meta created an internal effort to spy on Snapchat in a secret initiative called "Project Ghostbusters." Gizmodo: Meta did so through Onavo, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service the company offered between 2016 and 2019 that, ultimately, wasn't private at all. "Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted we have no analytics about them," said Mark Zuckerberg in an email to three Facebook executives in 2016, unsealed in Meta's antitrust case on Saturday. "It seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them... You should figure out how to do this."
Thus, Project Ghostbusters was born. It's Meta's in-house wiretapping tool to spy on data analytics from Snapchat starting in 2016, later used on YouTube and Amazon. This involved creating "kits" that can be installed on iOS and Android devices, to intercept traffic for certain apps, according to the filings. This was described as a "man-in-the-middle" approach to get data on Facebook's rivals, but users of Onavo were the "men in the middle."
Meta's Onavo unit has a history of using invasive techniques to collect data on Facebook's users. Meta acquired Onavo from an Israeli firm over 10 years ago, promising users private networking, as most VPNs do. However, the service was reportedly used to spy on rival social media apps through tens of millions of people who downloaded Onavo. It gave Facebook valuable intel about competitors, and this week's court filings seem to confirm that. A team of senior executives and roughly 41 lawyers worked on Project Ghostbusters, according to court filings. The group was heavily concerned with whether to continue the program in the face of press scrutiny. Facebook ultimately shut down Onavo in 2019 after Apple booted the VPN from its app store.
Thus, Project Ghostbusters was born. It's Meta's in-house wiretapping tool to spy on data analytics from Snapchat starting in 2016, later used on YouTube and Amazon. This involved creating "kits" that can be installed on iOS and Android devices, to intercept traffic for certain apps, according to the filings. This was described as a "man-in-the-middle" approach to get data on Facebook's rivals, but users of Onavo were the "men in the middle."
Meta's Onavo unit has a history of using invasive techniques to collect data on Facebook's users. Meta acquired Onavo from an Israeli firm over 10 years ago, promising users private networking, as most VPNs do. However, the service was reportedly used to spy on rival social media apps through tens of millions of people who downloaded Onavo. It gave Facebook valuable intel about competitors, and this week's court filings seem to confirm that. A team of senior executives and roughly 41 lawyers worked on Project Ghostbusters, according to court filings. The group was heavily concerned with whether to continue the program in the face of press scrutiny. Facebook ultimately shut down Onavo in 2019 after Apple booted the VPN from its app store.
If an individual did this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are we not seeing the Feds jumping all over this with the DOJ immediately?!?.
Re: (Score:1)
He's a Satanist. Stop trying to make every stupid fucking conversation about your stupid fucking holy war.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck is a privacy rapist (Score:3)
I'm sure Zuckerberg being a Zionist, New Yorker and Democrat party member has nothing to with this.
He's none of those. He's a privacy rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they don't. Bankman-fried is being sentenced this week. And Trump is facing severe legitimate legal troubles. So on non-elected, non-appointed, non-affiliated but somehow scary rich Democrat likely seeing jail time, and one previously high ranking possibly-rich Republican (in name) with a high chance of conviction. I'd say that the system is working.
The snag is not that the sytem lets off rich people, but that rich people usually can afford good lawyers. Poor people have bad lawyers or court
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need good lawyers when you own the Supreme Court?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the supreme court has no jurisdiction over state courts or civil suits. So SCOTUS can do nothing about this financial judgements where he now owes money.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant civil suits, but I think you're wrong about state courts, or at least it's nuanced. The recent case where SCOTUS held that Trump should not be excluded from the Colorado ballot due to the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution followed the path from state court to state supreme court to SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the rare cases where a state case overlaps with a constitutional issue. Another big example is a state suing the feds. However getting involved in a state's run-of-the-mill criminal case like Trump's would be much rarer (until they decide to live up to their right to life ideals and ban the death penalty).
Re: (Score:2)
You know that Bankman-fried was found guilty, right? And his sentencing is in two days, right? Good thing you posted anonymously, you must be embarrassed now.
Because the courts are packed (Score:2)
The program began after Barry Goldwater lost his election and the right wing in America regrouped and changed its tactics. Goldwater himself warned us about it and about the new wave of the American right wing. We didn't listen and here we are.
Re: (Score:1)
One count of wiretapping and one count of wire fraud per instance of interception.
Oh, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges.
For everyone involved.
No, wait - he's the third largest Democrat donor. Nevermind - Dish got their charges dropped last week for just a $130,000 donation to the Biden campaign.
And people think I'm odd for having a separate phone for secret-source apps!
Re: (Score:2)
No, wait - he's the third largest Democrat donor.
Yeah because the Republicans are sooo good at reigning in corporations.
How about you pull your head out of your arse, stop cheering for a political party like a sports team and recognize that this is a massive, bipartisan problem.
Re:If an individual did this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we not seeing the Feds jumping all over this with the DOJ immediately?!?.
While it might be about money, as others have suggested, I think there is an alternative suggestion: Meta/Facebook is too cooperative with providing data to the FBI/CIA and the DoJ doesn't want to risk that relationship.
Re: (Score:1)
Because it was done with the knowledge and consent of the Onavo users, and Facebook paid them ~$20/month for their data.
Gizmodo reported this back in 2019, but made no mention of it in today's article.
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-i... [gizmodo.com]
Using powers for evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Working in tech used to be cool but now it's just like finance. Dominated by sociopaths with zero principles that believe stealing money from people is OK as long as you can make some half-assed argument to blame it on the victim. i
You're too hung up on individuals (Score:3)
This isn't something that can be solved in an individual level it's a systemic problem. It represents decades of pro corporate shifts in attitudes and beliefs.
You need to understand that one of the things that corporations do is they spread the actions and blame around to so many people while also protecting those people from legal consequences.
That can be a good thing w
Re: You're too hung up on individuals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Google, Facebook never claimed not to be Evil.
My comment from yesterday (Score:5, Informative)
Still, marketing persists and tech people cling to their NordVPN!
Re: (Score:2)
Is especially relevant here, [slashdot.org] You shouldn't be using a VPN that neither you nor your employer control. The attack vector of compromise of the VPN provider (or it being plain malicious as it is here) is far worse than the near-useless-in-2024 security benefits of using a commercial VPN provider.
Still, marketing persists and tech people cling to their NordVPN!
Third party VPNs are fine, as long as you understand they are a security risk not a security mitigation. They're a minor security/privacy risk, on par with the security/privacy risk posed by your ISP. If all of your traffic is end to end encrypted (e.g. TLS), then that's not a serious problem. If some of it isn't encrypted... you should fix that ASAP, and using a third party VPN is not a fix.
Third party VPNs are good for region shifting and that's about it.
Re: My comment from yesterday (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the VPNs-for-security meme got pretty thoroughly embedded when companies were running their own VPNs to provide remote access to corp LANs (which is also not a great idea, though for different reasons) and security-clueless people assume that benefit is also provided by VPNs -- and the third-party VPNs in question definitely advertise security and privacy as a prominent features.
In all honesty, NordVPN et al probably are a net security win, assuming you're not trying to hide from law enforcement. T
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. coffee shop wifi, which is generally unencrypted and sniffable by anyone with a nearby antenna.
Your reply is very accurate until this part: this was true in let's say 2010, but now MiTM attacks like SSLStrip (hail Moxie Marlinspike) do not generally work anymore. HSTS, including prefetch lists embedded in browsers and widespread use of TLS mean coffee shop attacks just generate error messages in people's browsers. A few years ago, the installation of a browser plugin "HTTPS Everywhere" from the EFF was all you needed to do to guarantee it; but it's so widespread now that isn't usually necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of "NordVPN," you are moving it to a company that flat out lies about everything, even its name "Nord"..it's Lithuanian owned by a Panamanian entity, quite a boat ride to get over to the Nordic countries.
Despite this, traffic correlation attacks can de anonymize VPN users and proxies/VPNs aren't a great w
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like lawsuits from individuals possible (Score:2)
They trust me (Score:2)
They trust me, the dumb fucks.
1. I'm not surprised.
2. Little people would have been threatened with 1000 years in the kind of rape torture prisons that America likes to specialize in order to get them to plead guilty to something that will merely destroy their life completely.
At most, Meta will at most get a small fine put down to the cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also useful partner to the NSA. So $1 fine forthcoming?
So Zuck's going to jail, right? (Score:2)
Evil cyber criminal boss having his minions perform illegal wiretapping in millions of cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, but he'll be spending what is to him a trivial amount of money having his legal department come up with a reason the courts should ignore this.
Re: (Score:2)
Best they can do is get Martha Stewart for selling some stocks and Tommy Chong selling rolling papers via mail.
Thank goodness.. (Score:2, Troll)
This keeps happening until the state nuts up. (Score:2)
Buying a VPN service from Zuckerberg (Score:3)
is like getting financial advice from Sam Bankman Fried: how did those people even think this was legit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think someone would do a modicum of research before subscribing to something as broad-ranging as a VPN service. Especially since, in theory, people who use a VPN do so to protect their privacy. And ESPECIALLY since the VPN was free.
Many software aren't that important and you can install them with a cursory check of what they do and who owns them before installing them. But some, like VPNs or browsers, are so central to one's personal life, and have such potential for abuse, that they absolutely re
Nope (Score:1)
That's why no social media on my phone (Score:2)
Just imagine... (Score:2)
They have a name for this (Score:3)
Lock up Zuck for suggesting it, and shut down the fucking company already. They've learned zero from their oopsies with Cambridge Analytica et al. They're much more of a danger to America than Tik Tok and they provide nothing of value.
Fines with Teeth (Score:2)
Hitting companies with fines that have a significant amount of bite to them would solve this problem.
Set the fine as a percentage of overall Company worth at the time of the infraction ( ~5% as an arbitrary number ) and
watch how quickly this behavior self corrects.
Today, that would equate to a ~$5B fine for Facebook. ( In addition to what investors would do to it afterwards )