Previous installment of the discussion here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055</a>.
Facebook has had its enterprise certificates revoked by Apple [1]<p><a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebooks-info-sucking-research-app" rel="nofollow">https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebook...</a><p>> "Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple," Apple says. "Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data.”<p>[1] I previously posted this development as a story, but it got flagged as a dupe. It seems like this is the more truthful angle. since Apple seems to be the real agent that caused this shutdown.
I've been reading a lot of comments about this, and something that always comes up is the question "why shouldn't people be able to sell their data?"<p>I have two objections to that. First, they're almost certainly not making that deal from an informed position. Security and privacy are very complicated matters, and most people won't even realize to ask questions about data retention, aggregation, sharing, differential privacy, etc. Instead, they'll substitute in an easier more salient question (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution</a>), like "Is $20 a month something I want?"<p>The second issue is that MITMing all network traffic on a phone will necessary scoop up the user's credentials, as well as private messages and metadata from that user's friends and family. It's naive to think about privacy as something an individual can accomplish. When you sell data from your networked social device (i.e., your phone), you're also selling out all your friends and family. Given all that really hot data, what incentives are there for the data collector to act responsibly and protect that data? The reality is pretty much none.
If I tried something like this I’d have my developer account totally revoked and all my apps pulled; but I can’t imagine that happening to Facebook. It makes sense but it’s interesting that there’s a systemic de-risking of the way big players operate while simultaneously being in a position to do the most damage.
Fb is only "shutting down" it's iOS Spyware due to "bad press" not due to a sudden realisation that spying on children who are incapable of understanding the long-term consequences of the privacy invasion is <i>fundamentally</i> wrong/evil.<p>Fb only stop doing things that are <i>obviously</i> morally reprehensible when they get <i>caught</i> or <i>called out</i> in the media. They never proactively doing the <i>right</i> thing. :-(
> <i>The Research app requires that users install a custom root certificate, giving Facebook the ability to see users’ private messages, emails, web searches, and browsing activity.</i><p>Ouch. Yes that's really bad, even if it wasn't a violation of Apple's terms of service (it was, apparently).
Sure hope Google will shut down theirs too...lol<p><a href="https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573812?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757381...</a>
"Apple tells TechCrunch that yesterday evening it revoked the Enterprise Certificate that allows Facebook to distribute the Research app without going through the App Store."<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/</a>
I wonder if google will do the same for their "install a VPN and app outside the app store to look at what people do" app:<p><a href="https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7573890?hl=en&ref_topic=7574346" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/757389...</a>
I really hope people remember all the ways Facebook is being scummy for when Zuckerberg decides to enter politics. We don't need more people like him in government.
Would be nice if people prepare a series of questions about this for the next time Zuck is in the hot seat before Congress. Even if it doesn’t break any laws and acquired consent, this still smell so bad.
I struggle to see how software developers can willingly do work on a project that goes against all values and morales!<p>I have previously worked with developers in start-ups and was amazed to hear some of their backgrounds. One previously worked for a company that bundles spyware with freeware MSI products. Another worked for an airline agency, where they advertise fake a discount on tickets when the price was in fact higher than market. Needless to say, their actions outside the work environment matched their actions inside.
Disappointed to not see Apple putting their foot down more forcefully on this. It's possible they spoke to them, but there should be repercussions beyond just "shut down this one app".<p>EDIT: <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebooks-info-sucking-research-app" rel="nofollow">https://seekingalpha.com/news/3427520-apple-banning-facebook...</a>
F500 install certificates like this on their employee owned devices.<p>If FB hires these people, is there a difference?<p>Do you think a random admin assistant knows more than a techy teenager about the dangers of data privacy? Or is she just trying to scrape by for another week of rent?<p>This sounds like alarm from the rich and well to do about an ‘immoral’ way for the poor to make money.<p>Interesting nonetheless.
Could an admin explain why the original news item, previously the highest voted of the first page, was pushed to the third page suddenly? Just wondering if it was algorithmic or manually changed.
As context the HN submission of the techcrunch article, for those who missed it: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055</a>. Strangely just vanished from the top position.
> <i>Finally, less than 5 percent of the people who chose to participate in this market research program were teens. All of them with signed parental consent forms.</i><p>"Your honor, I swear! He clicked on the button saying he was over 18!!! How was my porn site supposed to know he was lying?"<p>If Facebook wanted to do something useful, it could devote some of that $400 billion empire into identity verification and ways to prevent deceptive practices online. Something that goes beyond the Stone Age practices like SSN and Captchas that we rely on today.
Remember when putting a picture of yourself on the internet or even using your real name was controversial? The old generation warned not to do it, ever! But teens did it widely and profusely.<p>Now the new controversy is data. Don't ever sell your data! Don't give up your data! But teens are doing it widely and profusely.<p>At some point you just have to accept that new people will be born and will have new ideas and just won't give a fuck. As a business you can either sit on the sidelines and watch or capitalize on it.<p>Facebook will lead the way to allow for smaller players to get away with doing this as well.
Meanwhile... Google, Microsoft and Apple* _receive_ money from their users to harvest the same personal data that Facebook is willing to pay their users for and nobody bats an eyelid.<p>* Apple is probably the least guilty here, however as long as their OS remains closed, we don't actually know how much personal data they are harvesting.
What a bullsh*t. People got some money for giving up some privacy. Nobody was forced to do this. And now everybody is freaking about a fairly reasonable trade.<p>What's next? People will start harassing students/researchers that do paid studies?