Hacker News Reader

Comment by dskhatri | Hacker News Reader

I would be more excited about this if I didn't have to log in via Facebook.

  Socialcam is requesting permission to do the following:
  * Access my basic information
  * Access my data any time ("Socialcam may access my data 
    when I'm not using the application")
  * Access my friends' information ("Current Cities, Photos,
    Videos and Photos and Videos of Them")

Granted I'm already having a tough time keeping up with all the permissions' changes when apps get updated on my phone, seeing the above (especially #2 & 3) gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe explain why you need these permissions on socialcam.com? Also, I would rather just create a socialcam user account and share a video on Facebook when I want to; I realize that would take the social out of socialcam.

View on HN

You are never forced to share a video on Facebook through SocialCam. We ask for the permissions so that it's one-click to share, not so that it will autoshare every time.

Trust me, we use the app all the time and none of us would want it to autoshare.

As for the particular permissions, they all support the basic functionality of the app.

We need your basic info so we can set up your name/picture in your profile

We ask for permanent permission so that we can keep that up to date.

We need to be able to access your friends information so that we can help you find people to follow in the SocialCam.

The reason we ask for each is pretty straightforward. Facebook doesn't have a particularly granular permissions system, so even though we don't use "current cities of your friends" we get it anyway.

> Trust me, we use the app all the time and none of us would want it to autoshare.

Using "trust me" in part of a response to security or privacy concerns may be a bad idea. :)

In the end, isn't that the only thing you can say? Maybe you can prove something about how secure a service is, but you definitely can't prove you'll respect people's privacy. All you can do is to respect them, and ask for trust.

Au contraire. You can say "You are not required to trust me. We don't ask for personal information nor require you to surrender your Facebook login nor do we demand that you send us a copy of your house keys in the mail."

It is a matter of scale. They are asking you to trust a couple founders of the company whereas you are asking them to trust thousands (potentially millions if they are successful) of users. Better to have Facebook filter out most of the bad actors up front and not pollute their site with spammers, trolls and other shenanigans until Facebook-only login is retarding their growth.

It works the other way around. Facebook is retarding their growth right now, when they can't afford to have it retarded. On the other hand, when they are big, they can afford to make users jump through hoops (and identify themselves).

That's really not true - Facebook, when used properly, can be an astoundingly good driver of growth. If you're not the type who would use Facebook, you're probably not the type of person who will drive their growth anyway, so why should they take away time from optimizing for those users who will?

One could prove that they have a lot to lose (such as reputation) if they break their promise.

I will never use a service that requires me to use my Facebook login. So while you may have a good reason, remember there are others like me who will never give you a shot because of your tying to Facebook.

We will add independent login in the future. We started with Facebook because it is easy to bootstrap the network, it is where most people want to share their videos anyways, and it allows us to keep the content clean much easier as most people don't want to troll under their own name.

I don't think you need the permanent permission just to keep user details up to date. You can use the real-time updates API for that (http://developers.facebook.com/docs/api/realtime/)

Am I missing a crucial detail?

I think I remember this being around since f8 2009. Anyone know for sure when this was introduced?

By going into the facebook privacy settings for that application, you're allowed to remove some of the individual permissions they ask for. Example: Access to data at all times can be removed individually.

> We need ... so that we can help "you"

(really means) > we need "your" help to bootstrap the network

Its interesting to hear this as we are currently building an app that we envision use Facebook Connect. Our plan to use FB Connect is so that we have a leg up on customer adoption than starting from ground zero, credibility (I flinch) of being associated with FB, and using the user's social graph to tailor and deliver content. But seeing some of the caustic (and valid) comments and fears about FB playing a central role, I am not sure if that route is such a good idea anymore.

We planned on using an Independent login along with FB and Twitter, but was planning to skimp on putting a lot of thought in to the Independent login. Would that not be prudent anymore? I would like to hear your thoughts (and of others).

I've avoided any authentication that requires FB. The day I'm forced, I'll be setting up a dummy FB account and keeping things disconnected.

How many legitimate businesses want access to my entire Facebook network?

How many scammers/spammers?

Isn't group B a lot larger than group A? Isn't even group A a little scammy? Does Kellogg's want access to my info to help me, or because they want to show me more cereal ads?

You're starting off putting yourself in group B, which is not a good idea at all. Facebook is acquiring a very negative user reputation, along the lines of Ebay and Paypal. That doesn't mean that people will stop using it, but there's very little trust for Facebook - Facebook has done everything in its power to demonstrate that it is not trustworthy.

Facebook can't be trusted to keep your data private, and you're lumping yourself in with them. Seems like a bad plan to me.

Clicking "let this company I've never heard of suck down all my Facebook information" is a terrible idea. It's like downloading and running an executable from ugothacked.ru. Except you can't even wipe your computer and reinstall - it's irrevocable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com