Facebook sues two Chrome extension devs for scraping user data

You should have noticed by now that there is widespread, emphatic agreement that Facebook should protect users' data from third parties.

This is why what Cambridge Analytics did was bad, right?

Theres a difference between collecting data with consent VS a spyware designed to secretly collect data.

These extensions didnt just scrape from fb, they did so from every website the user went to.

Monopolies and power blocs being the arbitrators of which is good or bad for our society is the new status quo.

It's not surprising that this press release focuses way more on the extensions mining ancillary 3rd-party information available via the extension (stuff outside of FB) than just what they took from FB - which otherwise FB gets unlimited and unscrutinized access too.

Instead of taking the opportunity to look within at how they are part of the problem, they push enforcement you'd normally expect more from the extension publishers, Chrome/FF/etc browser extension stores. Instead the massive data silos themselves want to run the show while still eating their cake.

They realized tncentives have changed as the interest groups and likewise the regulators (whom have the latter increasingly have their ear) have become increasingly concerned about blowback from the large pile of data they vacuum up every day, and their own self-proclaimed stewardship of that data.

They realized they can control it domestically for their own interests and fool the public into thinking the only concerns are Russia, China, and in this case malicious fringe nobody political groups with zero real-life power.

These are the new sheriffs in the 'wild-west' with inherently vague privacy rules, everything goes internally and for internally 'verified' 3rd parties. Meanwhile they create a smokescreen via engaging in token rule enforcement against tiny firms or the odd domestic authoritarian group so they can showcase themselves as being pro-privacy (ignoring the mountain of despots still using the services or blatant bipartisan double dealing).

IRL it's most likely not some top-level master plan or conspiracy as many claim, these sorts of moral inconsistencies happen naturally in these firms when they set up teams to control priority narriatives and have their loyalists moderate content, with a) primary focus on the fringes and easy hapless targets while b) willfully ignoring the bigger players or 'politically acceptable' groups (and their own businesses over-arching models).

History is littered with examples coming from the 'morally superior west'. Just look at northern Pakistan on the borders of Afghanistan for these sorts of compromises. Engaging in a decades long phony-war while ignoring geopolitical elephants in the room. These same inconsistencies are rampant in our new politically acceptable reality.

These inconsistencies are often obvious by default until some super egregious cases get 'caught' or more importantly politically unpalatable use-cases get exposed, then all of a sudden they are the good caretakers over your data - the people they long promised they would be!

Phony inconsistency is their calling card and easy to sport for anyone who is paying attention.

I sometimes wish I too was dumb enough to engage in hyper-partisan politics. Like blindly backing a sport team. And not see the long term deterioration of democracy, transparency, and rise of misguided authoritarianism by people who just discovered politics and think flailing about with new forms of top-down censorship will not simply backfire. Or is somehow better than the universal rejection of the (already) tiny fringe negative forces which we saw immedately after the capitol riots from bipartisan sides.\\

No, FUD convinces them we have to destroy the rights, rights created to protect them, to get there...

OK but in isolation there’s nothing wrong with going after malware developers. They might be "weak, non-customer defendants" but I’m certainly not going to feel sorry for them.

Also it’s not clear what fb is supposed to be doing then? Just let people write malware and steal user’s data? Be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

When Facebook customers, i.e., purchasers of Facebook advertising, filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook recently for fraud^1 (more specifically, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... ), Facebook tried to place their amended complaint under seal, so the public could not see it. In part, because it disclosed what goes on behind the scenes at Facebook, the very things that the plaintiffs are suing over. Facebook has much to hide and litigation is one way some of their shady practices may eventually find themselves under the spotlight of public scrutiny. What goes around comes around.

1 https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/...

This is just a masqueraded effect from Facebook to stop these devs from eating their lunch. Facebook makes money selling user data. If someone else makes money or gives that value away for free, then this is loss of revenue for them. Just follow the money. Facebook sucks and I wish there was an alternative like Signal for WhatsApp, but for Facebook.

Agreed. EXTRA funny since facebook was originally entirely powered by data scraped from harvard student directory.

Facebook is not suing them for stealing users' data, they are suing them for stealing THEIR data.

Well, _they_ want your data and they want to sell it for profit or make use of it in a profitable venture I imagine. They don't want anyone else getting it for free.

Like a mob boss sending goon squads to defend their turf

> demanding that they delete all Facebook data in their possession

I know "Facebook data" is not quoted, but I gather that is the way they feel about it, they aren't protecting the user and the user's data, they are protecting themselves and their data!

Sounds like it's perfect for Facebook, land of the MLM and foreign and domestic propaganda campaigns.

Malicious browser extensions are a very serious problem though. The user has almost no way to know if their data is being stolen.

Yep, lying about it is why they're being sued: "They misled users into installing the extensions with a privacy policy that claimed they did not collect any personal information."

If it was phrased as “user's data”, then couldn’t the app developer get the case thrown out on the basis of “we haven’t taken facebook's data, therefore facebook has no right to sue us”?

What?

just feed it some thispersondoesnotexist fake person image...?

>So I decided to sign up using a fake email and a fake name.

Facebook requires you to use your real name when creating an account.

>I was extremely shocked to learn that facebook requires you to upload a real picture of yourself in order to use the service[1]!

Nope, Facebook requires you to upload a real picture because you got caught creating fake accounts. You know who else uses fake names and emails and creates multiple accounts once the previous one runs into a checkpoint once it appears to be fake? Scammers and bots. Use your real name, and then lock down your privacy settings to where only your friends can see info about you. It'd be annoying to your friends trying to remember who "John Smith" actually was all the time anyways.

If you could link what you're referring to, it would help us in responding. What I'm reading could charitably be considered related and written by a human.

Just low quality human comments we always see on FAANG posts.

Of course this thread is being botspammed.

Bad actors hate when you talk about punishments for their actions.

You won't be sued (I'm not a lawyer) as long as you're not breaking and ToC, or misleading users into using it and sending you their data.

That's the reason the actor in the article is being sued, not because they're scraping, but because it was sending it to a 3rd party without consent or knowledge.

> whew. glad I sold early.

Sold what early? Stock? Were you involved?