Whenever I read articles like this, I get more and more horrified.
I mean, I know that adtech spy on us a lot, but I didn't knew for example that using Bluetooth while the app is shut down was possible.
Makes me very wary even of dumbphones, for example I bought a dumbphone recently, and yet it came with Facebook and Google Assistant both pre-installed.
"Facebook _could_ still fingerprint users using BlueTooth"
This article's title and narrative makes it sound like Facebook is using bluetooth fingerprinting to geolocate users against their wishes, and that Android's new permission will end that. However reading the text carefully it never actually claims Facebook is currently doing that. Are they or not? Is this article a hypothetical? That seems very disingenuous but also very typical of the kind of stories on privacy and advertising I see online.
My hunch is that the could language is couching since it can be hard to know for certain of Facebook is storing the data or just doing something else. But I think the implication is that they at least were looking at it when they weren't supposed to be
So we basically are seeing that google was "right" from their point of view in securing a mobile OS.
Facebook maybe thought this day would never arrive and could have avoided that by doing their own mobile OS too.
Well, maybe they declared this battle as lost and focused on the next one: VR. Problem is that VR took too long to arrive and death on mobile can kill Facebook?
> Problem is that VR took too long to arrive and death on mobile can kill Facebook?
Facebook owns the most popular messaging app in the world (WhatsApp) and two of the most popular social networks in the world (Facebook, Instagram). Are they really in trouble because of the Android/iOS changes?
"Kill facebook" might be a tad hyperbolic for a company which basically prints money. "Facebook might be forced to get a haircut on mobile revenue" might be more accurate
I guess that's what happens when you start late. Everyone else has their moats in place and you either 1) start from scratch at hardware level and develop a new phone from the ground up - electronics, OS, utility apps, dev tools or 2) focus on creating the next platform.
Both are really high cost, complex, multi-year bets with lots of moving parts and no real hint of consumer adoption/market size until way after the ship's sailed.
In my opinion, as a consumer, they're really on the path to make VR happen and their wrist-based tech and Oculus is very promising. What VR still needs, after all those years since it's been accessible to the general public, is a killer app, and one can only guess why no one has developed it yet.
While I'm sure personalization increases ad efficiency metrics to some degree, I'm curious to see how all this will actually "hurt" FB, either by making their ads worse in terms of CPA/CPC/etc or in advertisers pouring less money into FB and more money into other DSPs/inventories. As anything marketing, it's not that straightforward, really, and advertisers may very well keep running ads on FB despite all those changes.
IIRC only a very few use cases exist where such kind of location data is absolutely essential. They’re still gonna get loads of data from other sources, which would be good enough targeting for most advertisers.
Google should be in favor of privacy, their advertising model serves ads only when you want them about the subject you’re searching for. Facebook relies on knowing everything about you to show you ads when you don’t want them, hoping they’ll give you something you’re interested in clicking on.
Google certainly won't copy Apple here because being able to track the hell out of you is very important for their own business model. Apple can afford that because they sell hardware and services but not data.
Whats iconic is Google themselves have been using bluetooth for years to track your location. This still doesnt limit Google themselves using it, just third party apps. hence why it wont affect their ad business.
This is a win win for Google, slow down competition and give the illusion of privacy to users.
With the exception of people who travel a lot, I really don't see why location, beyond what users enter into Facebook themself, would be particular useful.
That seems to be the theme with Facebook, they collect a ton of information that isn't obviously useful. So what do Facebook know that the rest of us don't? Because the engineers at Facebook aren't stupid, they must have a reason for collecting all this stuff. Perhaps it's just in case they might find a use case some day?
> the user can breathe a sigh of relief as their location cannot be shared with nearby devices unless the app explicitly states it — which most users will unanimously deny.
If Facebook simply have their app say it won't work without accepting this, then I very, very much doubt that anything but a miniscule number of people would be uninstalling the app.
Under GDPR they cannot do this in Europe. You're only allowed to deny the user the experience of the app if the basic service cannot be met without collecting the user's data (i.e. location data for a turn-by-turn direction app)
I'm not a big facebook user, but I suppose this is good for the privacy-minded that do use facebook. However, it seems hypocritical of Google to grant greater control to users over the data that 3rd party apps can obtain but practically none over what users can control in the Android & Chrome ecosystem.
What is the point of "broad" location? Cant this be deducted from your cellular network? Wouldnt that save the trouble of keeping your GPS completly off ?
I saw on some new android phones something called "privacy features" which would mean not giving access to contacts for example. The problem is all apps know you are using this feature and they nag you to turn it off. Whats the point then?
How I want the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is given but nothing here. Oh well. ". Same for location and SMS and other stuff.
I remember old ios, circa ios 5-6 had app permissions behind a password. I would take family phones and lock down location and contacts behind a password (it couldand inapp purchases prevent access to store and iTunes and browser if I remember) so for giving kids this this would be great.
> How I want the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is given but nothing here. Oh well. ". Same for location and SMS and other stuff.
Yes, that is a good idea. The user could also program in more elaborate filters, e.g. to expose a subset of contacts data, random data instead of the actual data, spoofed locations, etc. Also can be distinguish read-only or read/write, etc. (If the user does not have all of these elaborate options and more, then the app writer might realize what is happening and then might program it to complain if there is nothing there. Also, such options can be helpful for testing purpose as well as for user customizability, too.)
(I don't use the cell phone, but nevertheless such thing like you mentioned can be good idea.)
> How I want the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is given but nothing here. Oh well.
That's actually a good idea. I wonder if any Android distros do this. In theory, it should be possible, but I don't know how tricky it would be to implement.
Broad location narrows you down to a neighborhood where your economic value can be inferred so the optimal ads can be directed at your way. No sense in showing Bentley ads to the poors.
Or your contancts have done something that included you and you knew nothing of it. At least you liking something to action on your part. All of the other methods that Facebook uses to continue gathering data about you without your direct knowledge is the worst. It's this behavior that should be the nail in the coffin for Facebook.
Facebook uses location data to learn where you live and where you go. For some, this location-based targeting might be fine since it serves them relevant ads.
These companies that manipulate population into buying products they don't want or need are the mythical "broken window".
Nobody mention how all this online business contributes to global warming. Factories produce useless products, that need to be stored, delivered, disposed of...
Why would they? These companies are collecting the data the government wants, it's a free service for the government and they only have to ask for the data when they need it.
It's difficult to make regulation for a specific line that actually does disallow tracking without leaving loopholes and does not put weird restrictions on everyone else.
However, governments (at least some) are trying; GDPR is a step in that direction, but it has ovious associated difficulties have been discussed here in HN for years; California is moving in with similar laws, so there is a trend, but it will take years for it to get anywhere. I'd guess that EU will make "GDPR v2" (however that will be called) with severe restrictions on tracking by 2025 or so.
Well, GDPR went large steps in making it somewhat illegal, while users may still "consent" to being tracked ... which lead to big cookie banners nobody understands. Steps are being done, but lobbies are strong in their fight against.
[+] [-] speeder|4 years ago|reply
I mean, I know that adtech spy on us a lot, but I didn't knew for example that using Bluetooth while the app is shut down was possible.
Makes me very wary even of dumbphones, for example I bought a dumbphone recently, and yet it came with Facebook and Google Assistant both pre-installed.
[+] [-] koalaman|4 years ago|reply
This article's title and narrative makes it sound like Facebook is using bluetooth fingerprinting to geolocate users against their wishes, and that Android's new permission will end that. However reading the text carefully it never actually claims Facebook is currently doing that. Are they or not? Is this article a hypothetical? That seems very disingenuous but also very typical of the kind of stories on privacy and advertising I see online.
[+] [-] ggggtez|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motoboi|4 years ago|reply
Facebook maybe thought this day would never arrive and could have avoided that by doing their own mobile OS too.
Well, maybe they declared this battle as lost and focused on the next one: VR. Problem is that VR took too long to arrive and death on mobile can kill Facebook?
[+] [-] dazc|4 years ago|reply
Seriously wondering what impact this would have on the world other than a positive one?
[+] [-] rmsaksida|4 years ago|reply
Facebook owns the most popular messaging app in the world (WhatsApp) and two of the most popular social networks in the world (Facebook, Instagram). Are they really in trouble because of the Android/iOS changes?
[+] [-] skohan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bushbaba|4 years ago|reply
My understanding is that even the latest version of android phones home your location in real-time. Which google uses itself for ads.
[+] [-] cardosof|4 years ago|reply
Both are really high cost, complex, multi-year bets with lots of moving parts and no real hint of consumer adoption/market size until way after the ship's sailed.
In my opinion, as a consumer, they're really on the path to make VR happen and their wrist-based tech and Oculus is very promising. What VR still needs, after all those years since it's been accessible to the general public, is a killer app, and one can only guess why no one has developed it yet.
[+] [-] akmarinov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracerbulletx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indymike|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intricatedetail|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cardosof|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pm90|4 years ago|reply
IIRC only a very few use cases exist where such kind of location data is absolutely essential. They’re still gonna get loads of data from other sources, which would be good enough targeting for most advertisers.
[+] [-] jliptzin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lodovic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcanus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorticalbox|4 years ago|reply
People are still using Facebook, posting pictures, tagging people they know, checking into locations, posting what they buy and so on.
Still pently of information to track and sell to advertisers.
[+] [-] grishka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onelovetwo|4 years ago|reply
This is a win win for Google, slow down competition and give the illusion of privacy to users.
[+] [-] an_opabinia|4 years ago|reply
Anyway, if you post an image to Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp, the EXIF data has your location, or it can be solved from the content of the image.
[+] [-] mrweasel|4 years ago|reply
That seems to be the theme with Facebook, they collect a ton of information that isn't obviously useful. So what do Facebook know that the rest of us don't? Because the engineers at Facebook aren't stupid, they must have a reason for collecting all this stuff. Perhaps it's just in case they might find a use case some day?
[+] [-] GordonS|4 years ago|reply
If Facebook simply have their app say it won't work without accepting this, then I very, very much doubt that anything but a miniscule number of people would be uninstalling the app.
[+] [-] skohan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OrvalWintermute|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2Gkashmiri|4 years ago|reply
I saw on some new android phones something called "privacy features" which would mean not giving access to contacts for example. The problem is all apps know you are using this feature and they nag you to turn it off. Whats the point then? How I want the thing to be, "oh, the contacts permission is given but nothing here. Oh well. ". Same for location and SMS and other stuff.
I remember old ios, circa ios 5-6 had app permissions behind a password. I would take family phones and lock down location and contacts behind a password (it couldand inapp purchases prevent access to store and iTunes and browser if I remember) so for giving kids this this would be great.
That has never come to android.
[+] [-] zzo38computer|4 years ago|reply
Yes, that is a good idea. The user could also program in more elaborate filters, e.g. to expose a subset of contacts data, random data instead of the actual data, spoofed locations, etc. Also can be distinguish read-only or read/write, etc. (If the user does not have all of these elaborate options and more, then the app writer might realize what is happening and then might program it to complain if there is nothing there. Also, such options can be helpful for testing purpose as well as for user customizability, too.)
(I don't use the cell phone, but nevertheless such thing like you mentioned can be good idea.)
[+] [-] yosito|4 years ago|reply
That's actually a good idea. I wonder if any Android distros do this. In theory, it should be possible, but I don't know how tricky it would be to implement.
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bozzcl|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realjohng|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AbuAssar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ape4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] animanoir|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donut2d|4 years ago|reply
Thanks, I hate it.
[+] [-] intricatedetail|4 years ago|reply
These companies that manipulate population into buying products they don't want or need are the mythical "broken window".
Nobody mention how all this online business contributes to global warming. Factories produce useless products, that need to be stored, delivered, disposed of...
[+] [-] yosito|4 years ago|reply
Because they're not really in charge anymore.
[+] [-] livre|4 years ago|reply
Why would they? These companies are collecting the data the government wants, it's a free service for the government and they only have to ask for the data when they need it.
[+] [-] cm2012|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcodiego|4 years ago|reply
Because then they won't receive a few million $$ in donation for the next campaign.
[+] [-] PeterisP|4 years ago|reply
However, governments (at least some) are trying; GDPR is a step in that direction, but it has ovious associated difficulties have been discussed here in HN for years; California is moving in with similar laws, so there is a trend, but it will take years for it to get anywhere. I'd guess that EU will make "GDPR v2" (however that will be called) with severe restrictions on tracking by 2025 or so.
[+] [-] johannes1234321|4 years ago|reply