Hacker News Reader

Comment by opportune | Hacker News Reader

Devil's advocate: you could always not run those apps. Although for non-technical users it would be challenging to determine if the apps were transmitting that info, it's possible for technical users to detect it (assuming the info goes to an obviously-facebook url and isn't piped through e.g. spotify)

Additionally I don't think there is anything wrong with client-side analytics in general since it's basically the only way to monitor performance/usage in production. And this type of thing is hard to discern from the more benign case

View on HN

>Devil's advocate: you could always not run those apps. Although for non-technical users it would be challenging to determine if the apps were transmitting that info, it's possible for technical users to detect it (assuming the info goes to an obviously-facebook url and isn't piped through e.g. spotify)

But therein lies the rub: the overwhelming majority of users of software are not like you and me and have no idea what's going on behind the curtains.

>Additionally I don't think there is anything wrong with client-side analytics in general since it's basically the only way to monitor performance/usage in production. And this type of thing is hard to discern from the more benign case

I hear this argument a lot and I empathize with the idea that having such information can aid in the development process. However, the argument asserting that some data may be useful to the developer so the developer is thus entitled to it, doesn't wash.

Regardless of the ubiquity of this behavior in today's software development industry, the fact remains that this process consumes the user's resources without their knowing or say in the matter and it's not OK.

The resources are trivial. If you don't like it you don't have to use the app that you chose to install.

> The resources are trivial.

I think I as a user should get to decide that.

>The resources are trivial.

Some of them aren't, though. The Facebook SDK isn't a trivial resource. It also depends a lot on the specific device the software is being loaded on to. It may be trivial to a newer device or one with upgraded hardware, but perhaps not so with baseline hardware or devices several years old.

>If you don't like it you don't have to use the app that you chose to install.

This argument may work with someone working in the software industry, but falls flat the moment the implied obligation is place on the unsuspecting.

You've very quickly sidestepped the primary point of the parent - many users would not know if it was even being loaded.

My bank has the Facebook sdk in there app. At the time they where the only bank willing to open an account for an under 18, international student. I queried them about opting out, they told me to opt out on Facebook's end. Not sure how I would avoid banking.

What is this fresh hell? If you buy a spatula on Amazon, would you accept "client-side analytics" on what you cook because "it's basically the only way to monitor it?" Or would you say that your spatula usage is nobody's business?

I love and happily pay for Spotify, but it is eye-opening that they send any data to Facebook. Well, shit.

If my spatula had as many failure modes as software, I would find it reasonable, sure.

Can you explain this argument? They are not adding the Facebook sdk to track failure.

In fact I would say that the incident we are discussing here shows that adding the sdk adds a failure mode.

> Additionally I don't think there is anything wrong with client-side analytics in general since it's basically the only way to monitor performance/usage in production. And this type of thing is hard to discern from the more benign case

I think in these situations it often helps if we would find this behaviour acceptable in the real world. For example we see advertisment in airport toilets or malls or whatever. As someone pointed out, the company advertising does have an interest in finding out if the ad is effective. So would people find it acceptable if someone was following the from the advertisement and writing down which stores they go to, what they buy? I acknowledge that there is significant effort to develop technology (e.g. using ultrasound) to do this, but the efforts to do this covertly are IMO a good indication that people would not accept it if it was done in the open.

Offline shops already track you via bluetooth and wifi

https://falkvinge.net/2017/04/15/schiphol-airport-tracking-e...

That's what I acknowledged with the ultrasound tracking (I was not aware of the tracking at Schiphol). But it just reenforces my point, if they would do it openly people would strongly object. Privacy invasion using technology is so abstract that it doesn't really relate to reality for many people (even very smart people).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com