Yes, the app is downloading private user messages (ostensibly to show a modified messaging interface) and private photos, according to their feature list.
This isn't a simple DNS-level ad-block, its acting as a proxy where the app developers can intercept and see all data.
Their website doesn't even have a privacy policy, just a dummy link: https://www.theogapp.com/
Are their servers acting as a proxy? Whether that's a privacy issue depends on how they configure/limit/audit their servers.
The press and users will blame Meta, not the developers of this app, or the users that unwittingly handed over their data. The headlines will say "X million Facebook users' data leaked," or "X million Facebook users hacked."
Meta is acting in an entirely reasonable manner for a company under such regulatory and press scrutiny.
Distinguishing "it violates privacy" and "it could violate privacy if the code was changed" is not naive.
That's absurd. Far more sensible to just ban it and call it a day.
What I said is that the two scenarios are very different.
ipsum2 is accusing the devs of already violating privacy.
Also their privacy policy is here: https://www.theogapp.com/privacy
The problem is that data ownership is complicated. If I know your phone number, can I share it with other people? That was CA (me downloading data about all my friends). Here the issue is private messages — is it okay for me to share the messages you sent privately to me? A lot of people will get quite upset if you do that!
Not trying to imply there's any sort of consensus here, of course. Just that "regulators disagree" certainly isn't the end of the discussion in any country with a functioning democracy.
That's half of it. Is the app sending the data back to the app makers? If not then it's extremely different.
Previously FB paid a 5 billion dollar fine because of insufficiently policing third part app developers.
Nowhere close. CA was asking permissions from users and then got the data from those users and all of their FB friends who did not agree to anything nor did they know their data is being collected.
It’s messy! Another similar problem in this vein is data about you that does not belong to you. Who owns your purchase history from Amazon, or which pages you clicked on? You? Amazon?
Are they just supposed to take their word for it?
Cambridge Analytica said they weren't abusing their access, too.
In 100 years, I wonder how we will look back at our generation tried to wrap its head around how digital information works. The implications are mind mending and we've been figuring it out our whole lives, with new aspects appearing regularly.
People like my grandparents couldn't ever download a conversation and share it, not in the same way
So, this is why I ask. It's actually really easy to find out what network hosts a piece of software is interacting with. If the dev really is stealing user data, it should be trivial to prove. This is the evidence I am asking for, otherwise that person's claims are completely baseless speculation.
The app is by definition acting as a proxy, and therefore the developers can intercept and see the data, though they might not be doing so currently.
You're making an assumption here that hasn't been confirmed. That assumption being that any app accessing user data from Meta is proxying (i.e., streaming the requested data to the app publisher's servers and then passing that data along to the end user) that data through their servers.
Is that the case with the app in question? Is it the case with every such app?
Or are there apps that directly connect to Meta's servers from the user's hardware without streaming the requested data through the app publisher's servers?
The app in TFA may be proxying (see above) data through their servers (that's the definition of a proxy in this context), but I don't know if they are doing so. If they are, there certainly are serious privacy/security issues with that process.
But again, no one has provided evidence that's what the app in question is doing. If they are, you should run screaming in the other direction.
However, if the app is simply performing the same API calls as Meta's app and returning the data directly to the end user, the risk profile is pretty similar for both apps (dependent on code quality, the ethical stance of the publishers, etc.).
If you use the built-in dev tools to do the same thing, then there is no proxy.
An alternative client for something is (usually) not a proxy. It connects directly.
But more importantly, "a proxy where the app developers can intercept and see all data" is not referring to a client-side proxy. Even if there was a client-side proxy involved somewhere, that would make the initial claim wrong.
That is not the point. The person you replied to wasn't saying they know for sure they were stealing user data, just that Meta has no way of knowing they aren't, and even if they aren't right now, no way of knowing if they will start in the future.
It doesn't matter what the app does at this moment, it can be changed at any point.
But isn't such an application running on the end-user's hardware and making requests at the end-user's behest?
If so, what does Meta have to do with it at all? Should they be allowed to tell me what software I'm allowed to run on my hardware?
The risk you mention is all on the user's side and none of it on Meta's side. If the user decides they want to accept that risk, AFAICT it's no skin off Meta's nose. Or am I missing something here?
If I grant a friend permission to view my photos, I am not also granting some random 3rd party that permission.
Assuming the "third-party" client is just that (a client app), there really shouldn't be an issue. If I use FluffyChat[0] instead of Element[1], do the FluffyChat folks have access to all my (and those with whom I communicate) Matrix communications? If I use Element, do they have such access?
If you use Firefox to access Facebook, are you granting Mozilla full access to your (and your FB friends') profiles?
There has been a lot of noise about "third-parties" and how they only exist to steal your data.
But we use "third-party" clients all the time. Web browsers, IRC clients, and a host of other "third-party" apps. Why aren't you up in arms about them stealing your data and that of your contacts?
Tell me, for the OGApp what is the monetization scheme? How do they intend to make money? By default if you don't see anything upfront you should assume that your data is what is being monetized. And your data in this case includes everything the app can pull down from Instagram while it's acting as a proxy.
Similarly and I keep mentioning this: Just because there's no current evidence of them stealing your data does not make them trustworthy. A site asking you for Steam login details would be almost impossible to prove that it's phishing for login details, but it would be a bad, bad idea to put in your login info anyways.
If they want their app to be trusted then it should be made open source.
I have no idea. I'd never heard of this app as I don't ever use whatever functionality it provides.
I'm not saying these folks are saints, I have no idea what sort of people they are. If it makes you feel better, I'll posit that they're scumbags who would sell their own mother for a nickel.
But that doesn't change the fact that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should be able to use the client of their choice for anything. If that's not the case, then Meta (or HN, for that matter, if they decide to be as scummy as Meta) would be within their rights to decide which browser you use to connect to their properties, and what add-ons you install in that browser.
Sorry, that's not an acceptable solution[0].
>If they want their app to be trusted then it should be made open source.
You won't get any argument about that from me. But even if these guys are all clones of the anti-christ scheming to destroy humanity (for the record, I have no idea and make no value judgement about the ethical standards of the app publisher and its employees) by creating a subset of the data Meta already collects, if I (or anyone else) decides they want to use that software on their personal property, who's to say what can or can't run on that hardware?
I don't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but my property belongs to me and I will run the software I choose on my property. That has nothing to do with Meta or the publisher of the app discussed in TFA. Rather, it's about my control of my property. Full stop.
[0] My objection is one of principle, not about any specific software. And I stand by that objection.
Edit: Added footnote.
And in fact, sites are within their rights to determine which browser you can use to connect. Sites are often designed for and optimized around certain browsers and if they detect you running Internet Explorer 3, they can tell you to go away. This is a fact of the internet. And you're just as free to simply not go to their sites. This has been a fact for decades. No site is obligated to serve your obscure internet browser. And no API is obligated to serve every client that calls it.
Did this specific app actually "scam users out of their credentials?"
I'd expect that they didn't "scam" anything. The end user installed the app and voluntarily provided their credentials in order to access their content.
How is that a scam? If I'm using an Android phone and sideload an app to access say, HN, whether that's an apk from a publisher's website or from F-Droid, have I been scammed out of my HN credentials by that app's publisher?
If the app claimed to be the "official" app from Meta and used phishing techniques to get folks to install the app and/or reveal their credentials, that would be scamming.
But a deliberate choice by a user to use a specific app for a specific purpose, with the app in question actually serving that specific purpose doesn't seem like a "scam" to me.
Sure, Meta doesn't like it for a bunch of reasons. And it doesn't surprise me that they took action to smack these guys down. But characterizing this app as a "scam" doesn't seem to reflect reality.
Or am I missing something?
That’s not true at all. They have a privacy policy linked at the bottom of their page. It opens in a new tab by default which is probably blocked by our adblocker.
<a href="#" class="footer-link">Privacy Policy</a>
Are they doing something weird and non-standard that may not work everywhere? Quite possibly. Is it a dummy link that goes nowhere, per your claim? Absolutely not.
Do you have evidence of this? An example of network traffic indicating that the app is communicating with something other than Meta, perhaps?
This is what got Facebook in trouble with the FTC... they allowed developers access to all the users data without oversight. They are required by their settlement to not just trust app devs that they won't abuse the data.
That said, while I don't disagree with the point you're making, I disagree with the approach. There's a difference between recognizing that the market is interested in the approach the third-party app is taking and working with them to figure out how to move forward together, and nuking from orbit the unconnected personal accounts of everyone tied to the app on LinkedIn.
Not being obligated to do something doesn't mean that one is excluded from looking like an asshole if they don't do that thing.