The same applies for EVERY airline app I have used over the last 5 years.
NoRoot Firewall for Android, and put a global Deny rule for 31.13.x.x and problem is solved.
It's not that they want to notify Facebook. It's that they get useful functionality from libraries that Facebook makes available. And they've either decided that sharing your info with Facebook is a worthwhile tradeoff for the engineering time, or they don't realize it's happening.
> Facebook routinely tracks users, non-users and logged-out users outside its platform through Facebook Business Tools. App developers share data with Facebook through the Facebook Software Development Kit (SDK), a set of software development tools that help developers build apps for a specific operating system.
I don't have more info than that
The same applies to all airline companies that through their apps and my boarding passes have access to TOO much personal data.
Google has been smarter by being much more low-key about their data collection and potential privacy problems. Facebook's attitude has been so blatantly sleazy, self-serving, and user-hostile that they've made themselves a magnet for negative attention.
Though Google may catch up, due to their questionable permission requirements for some of their apps (e.g. you must enable all the tracking just to use voice commands with Android Auto).
They've also worked around their own permissions model. Google Play Services demands a massive amount of permissions, and will yell and scream and try to scare you if you take them away. IIRC, a lot of Google's own privacy invasions are conducted indirectly using that library.
This emotional negative bias against Facebook has existed for more than a decade in this otherwise informed and rational community, so it doesn't surprise me anymore.
Probably for ads: either measuring ad conversions, or building ad targeting/exclusion buckets. For example, your bank can exclude your devices from their FB ads because FB already knows you have their app and presumably a customer.
Because by doing that they get access to a ton of analytic data?
there's more of these kinds of lists out there for other intrusive ad companies.
Not a bad idea really. The problem is that it turned super predatory. Facebook just wants engagement at all costs. It’s not a tool for managing your life, it’s a tool for someone else to profit off it.
problem is that with tracking, people on the tracking side become to greedy for profit, and without tracking / censorship, then the people on the user side become vile and corrupt suddenly :D. either way there will be people enjoying it and people hating it at the same time. there's no pleasing some :D in any case , and really, maybe we should stop trying to do so, and just get on with more useful stuff than debating everlasting debates.
in the end it's more philosophical problem than anything, and how useful are those to debate...(except to people who enjoy that of course!) are we in a simulation, or not? no way to prove it, no impact even if it would be, so why try to get the whole of internet users involved and distracted with it. we can go back and see, that then, it will probably just be people who like to discuss these things who are doing so, and they will always do so.
is it immoral or wrong to make a profit within a capitalist system? Or is it immoral or wrong to expect someone to change their ways or return your investment just because you didn't pay attention and paid for something you didn't want??
example of facebook user mentality i saw in some drunk at a station: - drunk buys a paper from a bum - bum gives paper for 50 cents - drunk gets mad and attacks bum because the paper is a day old.
really, that's the privacy debate in a nutshell.
Yes, things that don't exist can't be good or bad, and neither can things be good or bad without people. Once the thing exists at the same time that humans exist, we get opinions on good and bad. One way of deciding whether something is good or bad is whether it works to benefit your life, vs. making things worse.
You can call this a philosophical problem if you want, since pretty much anything can be described the same way, but realizing that FB people are greedy fucks when it comes to our daily datapoints over the course of our entire lives (they hope) is not a matter of theory. I'm not sure how you skated from FB's greed to "people become vile and corrupt when they aren't tracked by FB," though.
is it immoral or wrong to make a profit within a capitalist system?
Sometimes, and sometimes those profits are specifically illegal, with penalties at the level of "decades in prison." We the people get to decide (more or less) what acts qualify for those penalties, and there is no universal truth to which these penalties must be compared. We could put all board members of companies that leak data in prison, calculated at one day for every person's data that was exfiltrated. Strict liability. That is the privacy debate in a nutshell.
I have little choice about whether or not I'm going to be spied on by Facebook, Google, etc. That's the problem. If I could engage in some sort of meaningful informed consent (if I consent to data collection, then it isn't spying), that would resolve 90% of the philosophical issues.
But I can't.
I think it's a genuinely bad idea to put any single entity in the driver's seat like that.
Since Facebook is only one of a huge number of other objectionable data leakages apps present to us, I recommend something more expansive than that. I recommend blocking all outgoing traffic entirely by default, and only enabling outgoing traffic for specific apps to specific destinations as needed.
-facebook already as my bank account info
-facebook already has my social security number
-if facebook doesnt have that stuff, im sure they could buy it or brute force it in seconds. (they can brute force a key for onion addresses...)
-I dont really care if facebook knows WHEN I log in (remember we are just talking log in services, not ad analytics)
-I trust facebook's service itself to be very secure. Facebooks login system its very likely insanely complex to prevent unauthorized logins. They know so much about me, they know when someone isnt me. See also, Google. I dont trust my bank to have this kind of "me detection" like I do Facebook/Google.
Reasons I would not use FB to sign in
-no other way into account if facebook decides to lock my account.
-super arbitrary content policy
-terrible support team to resolve arbitrary issues.
From a technical perspective, facebook seems like an excellent way to verify and secure the identity of "is this me." I cant really think of anyone else at the Google/AzureAD scale who does it better than Facebook. From a customer service perspective, Facebook gets the human side wrong of how to handle people.
> facebook already has my social security number
> if facebook doesnt have that stuff, im sure they could buy it or brute force it in seconds.
Do you not agree that this is a somewhat sad state of affairs?
And the fact that FB has your data certainly isn't a justification for a bank using any kind of such integration. My pet store has my credit card data, doesn't mean I want my bank to use them as an identification provider or have any integration with their systems.
And if powerful abilities are what you're looking for, the mafia can also brute force anything out of anyone. So I guess... yay? That's a good reason for banks to use them.
The reasons you yourself gave in the "against" section are sufficient to disqualify them. I have a contract with my bank. Any 3rd party introduced in there is additional liability. When that 3rd party is a company with a proven track record of every shady practice known to man it just reinforces my opinion.
I'm sure there are banks to cater for everyone's tastes. I just don't see a reason why I would ever want to give my business to any such bank.
I would not use FB to log into a bank because of the Against section. Its not the technical implementation, but their human services that make the product too risky to be trusted as my keys to a door. Im not worried about them logging in and poking around my bank, im worried about them locking me out.
First of all I do not trust Facebook in any way and would no longer trust my bank if they trusted Facebook. FB does not have any kind of obligation towards me (at least none that they're willing to uphold, even if it means bending or breaking the law). I consider banking to be a critical service to me so I personally wouldn't want them to have anything to do with my bank.
Second of all FB and the bank could at any time share data that would negatively impact me and we already know there are no negative consequences to that as far as the companies are concerned.
And lastly, my bank using this even as an opt-in sets the trend and suggests their intentions in the future. Continuing to use it means endorsing the behavior. Like buying software from a company that also sells to oppressive governments. If I have a choice I avoid it.
Myspace, Adobe, and Dropbox all lost databases.
(If they are asking my social to verify my identity, they already know it to verify against.)
Again, your personal choice could be to post you CC data on your FB wall, you're free to do whatever you want. But you're seeing this very one sided if you assume everybody should be just as comfortable with FB and anything real in their life sharing data, or relying on a 3rd party with 0 obligations towards you for those critical services.
And mind you, the problem isn't that the bank is relying on a third party for things. They may already be using a cloud service, they could also be using an Apple ID or a Microsoft account. It's that they would use a social media platform in general (thus allowing data sharing which will never do the customer any favors), and Facebook in particular (since they have some of the most atrocious morals and unreliable promises).
i agree fb is terrible at promises or treating people like they matter, but the only thing they ever do with the data collected on people is make them targetable demographics to advertisers. use an adblocker if you dont want to see them.