There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?
We could only access the private message history containing the conversations we had had with the individual, nothing else.
You think people care about their personal data, you should see what type of information they provide through private messaging platforms. Including through public posts, it's shocking.
I really wish there was a law requiring real disclosure of such customer/user-data sharing agreements with enough detail to know what's actually happening. The disclosures should include things like schemas, example records, and reasonable names for data receiptients (e.g. Amazon Inc., not Sunshine Data Brokers II Inc., an unacknowledged subsidiary of Amazon).
There's no way to make an informed choice about using a particular service or dealing with a particular company without that.
In Canada, the only way method for P2P money transfer is through a system called Interac, which relies on email addresses. Using Facebook Login + Messenger was a big improvement since it's harder to accidentally send money to the wrong person.
If so, the New York Times is throwing shade on Facebook basically for not being enough of a walled garden. I hope their journalists are not that confused?
Oh hey, would you look at that: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messeng...
At this point it’s hard to dispute that at Facebook “private” is synonymous with “public” for most practical purposes.
You give permission for those and the data accessed is often not public. There are degrees of privacy - what you're trying to do make up your own definition of 'public' and then have message board fights about it. It's not really a sensible position, let alone interesting conversation.
This is actually a fair criticism. I don't know why you're being downvoted for it.
I'm not sure this was always the case with Facebook though. Let's say my friend John gives RBC access to his messages and I message him asking to loan me $50 because I'm struggling with money. Down the road if I apply for a loan from RBC they now have access to my "private" message, without my permission and can ostensibly then use that information when determining my creditworthiness. All without my knowledge or consent.
They are the bad guys. They didn’t need to steal Android phone logs either, but they did.
It's quite possible that, even at a company that has done some bad things, other things have a more innocent explanation.
On Instagram last weekend I and a friend were shown a number of ads for Chandon sparking wine after I bought a bottle, and someone else at the party also did and we talked about it.
Both of us insist we didn't google sparkling wine, Chandon, or anything we think relevant... it really does on the face of it appear Facebook had listened to us.
If you ever get in a car accident in the United States don't be surprised to get mail the very next day from accident insurance attorneys because you bet every service you use is selling every aspect of your life without your explicit knowledge or consent. Every time you use a credit card to purchase something that information is sold to a network larger than you can imagine, who will in turn sell it to their network. Your geographical location is sold by your cellphone provider whether you realize it or not and whether you think you have GPS tracking turned off. If you have a SIM card that's tied to you as an individual, it's being sold.
Here's just one example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/19...
Notice how the keyword is "suspend"? I don't doubt that they've quietly resumed the practice. In fact, I bet all of these companies and service providers are overjoyed right now that the media is so focused on FB to care about all of the shady shit they're doing on a daily basis.
I'd rather not have any of my data shared, of course, but if I had to pick and choose between my health insurance being sold and versus what TV shows I liked on FB, I'll take the TV shows any day.
A far more probable and less exciting explanation is that your credit card provider (or the store you bought the wine from) is selling your information and Facebook happens to be one of the buyers.
Furthermore, people grossly overestimate how unique they are. At any given point in time you're a target market for millions of products, you just don't notice the ads for the ones you don't buy. Just because there's a correlation doesn't mean you were singled out as an individual.
"On May 14, 2014, Acxiom announced that it had acquired LiveRamp, a data onboarding company, for $310 million. LiveRamp was founded in 2011 as a spinout of RapLeaf, a marketing data and software company founded in San Francisco, California in 2005 by Auren Hoffman and Manish Shah.
In May[2017], LiveRamp announced a consortium formed with two other ad tech companies, AppNexus and MediaMath, to compete with Facebook and Google in the area of programmatic advertising, the term used to refer to the use of automation software to buy advertising.
In 2016, LiveRamp acquired two data and identity-matching startups, Arbor and Circulate, for more than $140 million combined. The company also announced the launch of IdentityLink, a method of anonymizing consumer's identities as they are tracked across multiple platforms.
In February 2018, Acxiom announced a reorganization from three divisions into two - a Marketing Solutions group and its LiveRamp business. In May, the company announced international expansion into Brazil, Netherlands and Italy, and released Global Data Navigator (GDN), a portal for identifying available data elements by country. In June 2018, Consumer research firm GfK MRI has partnered with Acxiom."
Also surely advertising the same wine I just bought to me is... dodgy ROI at best?
It'll remain a mystery forever.
You may have brought it online in which case almost certainly there was a FB tracking pixel fired back from the e-commerce website to signal that you did. On the other hand if you bought from an offline store and swiped a loyalty card while doing so, your transaction might have been uploaded to create a custom audience. If you paid by your phone or have your loyalty app on your phone this becomes even easier - convenient offline to online matching is the only reason loyalty program apps are pushed.
Finally, even if you didn't do any if these and the other person did, if you both connected to the WiFi at the party and checked FB (or better still you added the other person as a friend), the shared IP address between your devices is enough of a signal to begin connectings.
It could have been that she then searched for a charger and being a small company we all shared an external IP address, that we also shared the ads... or it could have been that spy software on my phone had sold our conversation to advertisers. Either way, mic privileges were locked down and ad and tracker blocking efforts doubled after that.
Address book import and triangle closing drives the most PYMK features across every social network. It's a gold mine, and that's why everything wants it.
I wonder if the delete permission was by accident or whether these companies were actively deleting private messages - craziness.
They've clamped down repeatedly on how much data comes out of the API - you used to get full info on friends, then just their names and IDs, then that list wound up filtered to just other friends who'd authorized the same app.
It used to be extremely wide-open.
Geez, and I thought I was annoyed with mere former bosses showing up who I didn't part on good terms with
Not sure why the others needed it
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messeng...
The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patients of the same psychiatrist, estranged family members, and a harasser and his victim.
Facebook, in turn, used contact lists from the partners, including Amazon, Yahoo and the Chinese company Huawei — which has been flagged as a security threat by American intelligence officials — to gain deeper insight into people’s relationships and suggest more connections, the records show.”
Well, that explains some of the conspiracy-mongering that was so rampant around this feature. Facebook (probably) wasn’t secretly recording your phone calls etc. They didn’t need to - they were getting streams of data from other partners.
“Facebook also allowed Spotify, Netflix and the Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread”
Uhhhh, excuse me?