Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Logical007 t1_isbiwe8 wrote

What a clickbait article.

Here’s the cliff notes: the data lives on the device for the purpose of the application and doesn’t leave the device.

71

[deleted] t1_isblp7z wrote

[deleted]

78

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isbv0li wrote

Yeah I remember when Alexa was only listening to you when you called out it's name. Turns out that's not the case but Alexa doesn't store any recordings so it should be good. Turns out that's not the case.

Facebook is absolutely going to record everything on day 1.

53

Biscuits4u2 t1_isdrha1 wrote

Yep. And cops use Alexa data all the time in their investigations.

7

OmNomCakes t1_isdsv93 wrote

That's in the same way they submit a request to Google for your search history. If you say "Alexa how do I poison a dog" it's the same as Googling "How do I poison a dog".

It's not like the Police are asking Amazon to pull up secret recordings of you at 4AM as you take a taco bell shit. Lol

1

Biscuits4u2 t1_isdt7zf wrote

There have been numerous cases where actual audio recordings from Alexa were used in police investigations. That's different from just getting a warrant for your search history. Do with that information what you want.

1

Neo_Techni t1_ise4yp6 wrote

Yes, he admits that. He already has that information

I'm reminded of how people got mad that Pizza Pizza helped the police, not realizing it was an instead where they helped get a mob off the streets that was shooting people. I WANT Pizza Pizza saving lives like that

−1

americansherlock201 t1_iscvqxz wrote

Not just profit, but reach a large enough user base where the data has value. Super small user bases like those using this don’t have too much value. Millions of people using it and the data becomes much more valuable.

And for anyone wondering what this could be used for: they could track if you’re paying attention to something on screen such as in game ads to gather a value for those ads

2

what595654 t1_iskpydq wrote

Sure. But, this is still a clickbait article created to insight reactions and divide lines. Meta makes amazing headsets, is pushing VR/AR more than any other company in history. And yet, I dont like their business model.

1

iamchairs t1_isbqeoi wrote

Facebook can't just do anything they want. Not with the regulations that have been placed on them. And their privacy/security culture is much stronger than you think.

−8

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isbvrzc wrote

Yeah, there's no way facebook would sell peoples data without their consent. The privacy and security is very strong with that company.

5

iamchairs t1_isbw12o wrote

Link to Cambridge Analytica scandal. Yes that was a major driver for all of the regulations put on Facebook thereafter

0

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc2zx8 wrote

And how are the regulations going to stop it in the future? And what about the privacy/security culture? Did they get that culture right after the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Maybe they never had that kind of culture no matter what you think or what they say.

Best to get your head out of your ass and stop believing in lies that are easily disprovable by random people on the internet.

1

iamchairs t1_isc3jgs wrote

Yes check the FTC regulation. Random people on the internet includes people who work at Meta.

0

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc4fkn wrote

Oh the people responsible to creating the system that monitors us all? Let's not forget that we only found this information out because an ex employee of Cambridge Analytica spoke out.

For all we know, selling information is happening right now. FTC can't act on anything if they don't know.

2

iamchairs t1_isc4o9l wrote

People who work at Meta would know

−1

FPOWorld t1_iscisx3 wrote

Like they knew about Cambridge Analytica?

2

iamchairs t1_iscr9qw wrote

In your own words can you tell me how the CA scandal was conducted? I'll wait

1

FPOWorld t1_iscsj1l wrote

You’ll be waiting a long time because that sentence makes little sense.

1

iamchairs t1_isct193 wrote

In what way does it not make sense? Tell me how the CA scandal worked. Do you know?

1

FPOWorld t1_isctjiy wrote

Yes. I’m a computer engineer.

1

iamchairs t1_isctw68 wrote

Good, and so am I. You could sum this up in a couple sentences then. But instead you are deflecting?

1

FPOWorld t1_iscuq1v wrote

CA jacked a bunch of data illegally, Facebook knew for years and didn’t disclose what happened until after that data was used to jack the election for Trump.

Edit: if you can call it a disclosure after it only came out via whistleblower complaint

0

iamchairs t1_iscvjbk wrote

Yeah pretty good. So as a response to that, Meta changed a lot of policies internally, and created a strong culture around privacy/security, has active 3rd party oversight, and strict guidelines from the FTC on how it can interact with 3rd parties on user data.

1

FPOWorld t1_iscywk2 wrote

NOW we can trust them? This is after they secretly ran psychological experiments on users without their consent (among many other scandals). They didn’t even suspend CA from using Facebook until after the whistleblower. They knew CA broke the law and covered it up for years. They didn’t follow their own policies, were an accessory to one of the greatest crimes of my lifetime, did nothing to stop what CA did with the data, and now we can trust they’re going to start following the rules?

The rot is at the top. There’s no fixing that as long as Zuck the conqueror is running the show. I won’t give meta a goddamn dollar or a click.

1

iamchairs t1_isczj4y wrote

Secret psychological experiments... You mean AB tests?

> one of the greatest crimes of my lifetime

I was going to say you must be young then but even then that doesn't make sense given everything that has happened since then... You sure you got the right scandal?

2

FPOWorld t1_isd0ql2 wrote

No, I mean where they did an experiment to manipulate users’ emotions: https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/02/facebook-sorry-secret-psychological-experiment-users

Stealing a US presidential election that led to the outlawing of abortion, nationwide voter suppression, and the community spread of Covid and a million dead Americans is right up there with anything I can think of.

1

iamchairs t1_isd2855 wrote

Yeah so this is called an AB test. These are happening all the time. Even here on Reddit did you know your version of Reddit may be slightly different than everyone else's? It's to test to see what a tweak to the system (UI or Feed) has on your behavior. In the article you linked, the article says Facebook was tweaking the percentage of positive/negative sentiment items it let through to your feed.

Yes through the Facebook platform Trump was able to get elected when maybe he wouldn't have otherwise. But the world is too complicated to say "everything happened because of X and only X". What about the following 4 years when the republicans blocked 2 impeachments? What about all of the existing levers used by those in power? Facebook was the shiny new lever. A big one- I'm not downplaying the significance- but one of many.

1

FPOWorld t1_isd33r1 wrote

Do you work for Facebook?

I’m well aware of what A/B testing is, as I mentioned, I’m a computer engineer. Why did they apologize for an A/B test, which as you know is almost an industry standard practice? Finding which widget gets the most clicks is an A/B test, not inflicting sadness on users as part of a psy op.

Sure this was not the only factor, but it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t a critical one. It’s especially egregious as it was done in the process of committing a crime that FB covered up. They deserve 0 trust.

0

iamchairs t1_isd4u7y wrote

Because they thought it was the best way to address it most likely. Schrep says in that article that they should have used a different method to conduct the same research, not that the research itself was wrong.

1

wmurch4 t1_isbm1si wrote

Omg they'll know I winked that one time! Think of the ads!

−18

[deleted] t1_isbn7h4 wrote

[deleted]

18

iamchairs t1_isbrr7h wrote

Facebook does not promote divisive articles in the way you are implying. All these social media companies are playing the same game. Their algorithms help viral content achieve higher virality. The base algorithms do not care what the content is. Actually, a lot of work is done to stop the algorithm from promoting harmful content, but that often becomes a political question.

It's important to understand this. Because while it feels good to point at Facebook as "the bad guy" and call it a day. Every platform has the same problems. You are using one platform as a sacrificial lamb and turning a blind eye to problems that are apparent on all platforms.

−15

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isbv8q1 wrote

>Their algorithms help viral content achieve higher virality.

By promoting them. So yes, Facebook does promote divisive articles to achieve higher virality. Look, just because you fancy it up, doesn't mean words have changed their meaning.

And yes, every platform has the same problem but their capability is very very small and lots of times, their capability is directly based on facebooks capability.

You could say that Facebook is the evil company that gives other companies bad ideas.

12

iamchairs t1_isbvpgw wrote

I expected this would be your response more or less

Edit: Ah you changed your response after mine to flesh it out a bit. Keep it classy

−16

MorfiusX t1_isbwv7z wrote

I expected yours would be dismissive.

9

iamchairs t1_isbx5g2 wrote

Well the trick here is the original response was just the top one. It did not address most of what I said but picked out the one thing where I technically agreed with them if you squinted. But after my response they changed theirs. So I'm only now dismissive after the commenter edited theirs

−10

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc3fx0 wrote

Funny how that works eh. Every rebuttal I have shoots down your badly constructed ideas.

4

iamchairs t1_isc3ohp wrote

That doesn't make sense. Touch grass

−2

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc4los wrote

You first.

4

iamchairs t1_isc4sn9 wrote

You know I can tell the first thing you do is downvote my posts. Why are you so upset?

−1

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc58sb wrote

You don't seem to understand what the downvote represents.

4

iamchairs t1_isc5tvn wrote

Yes it's how you bury content. But it's just you and me here and whoever is going to come after us to see where this thread leads to. At this point we are so far down and replying to each other so quickly we are essentially texting each orher. So by downvoting each of my texts as soon as you get them it seems like you are having a very emotional experience right now

−1

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc37zt wrote

Well that's because unlike you, I don't make stupid arguments that are false. I know what words mean and I don't plan to sales talk my way out of bad things.

3

iamchairs t1_isc3v1g wrote

Sorry if the words were big

1

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc4qkx wrote

You shouldn't be sorry the words were big. You should be sorry you thought I was an idiot and easily fooled by sugared tongues.

2

iamchairs t1_isc5aeg wrote

Nah it's not misdirection. So as I explained there is a natural virality to content. The baseline for most of these algorithms is to notice when something is breaking out, and boost it further. That process is indifferent about the actual content

1

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isc5n44 wrote

Yes and the virality is fed to people with competing ideas to rile them up and increase clicks. You're just telling me I'm wrong and then proving me right just in more words.

4

[deleted] t1_iscs4vi wrote

[deleted]

2

iamchairs t1_iscuvss wrote

Pretty lazy response. But not surprising based on what I've seen so far.

When you focus all of your attention on Facebook like it's the final boss then you fail to address the systemic problems all of these platforms have.

1

[deleted] t1_iscw2jo wrote

[deleted]

1

iamchairs t1_iscxhye wrote

I've hardly gone out of my way to be pro Meta. I've been fairly neutral the whole time on Meta but I've tried to be objective.

Whenever Meta is in the news we get dozens of these threads that are all the same thing.

Whenever another platform gets caught doing something evil those threads become what-about-facebook threads and, crucially, the thing platform X was doing never actually stops but we all got a good laugh at the old zuck so it's fine.

1

[deleted] t1_iscyenu wrote

[deleted]

1

iamchairs t1_iscztjx wrote

I'm just telling you how these algorithms work and what is public knowledge about Facebook and privacy policy. It's honestly pretty boring stuff. But if that's pro-Meta I don't know what is neutral. Their logo is blue... Is it like.. an evil blue?

1

OmNomCakes t1_iscy7r2 wrote

Gauge your audience my dude. These people have no idea how or why tech works. They likely get upset when a phone app wants permission to calls thinking it's listening to them. See the Alexa comment above, they're referencing Alexa having to listen to things that aren't Alexa to know when you say Alexa.

And if you try to explain how software works you're a 'shill'. God forbid you show them how to monitor the actual physical traffic from the devices so they can see for themselves. They'd just say the device must be hiding it!

Probably the same people that say Google ads suck because all they show them is gay porn.

1

[deleted] t1_ishg72s wrote

[deleted]

1

OmNomCakes t1_ishoq0e wrote

I honestly don't use and hate Facebook. That's beside the point. The second anyone has a different opinion than you they MUST be a shill. God forbid someone see things differently or know more than you. I assume it's a defense mechanism to protect your ego.

1

[deleted] t1_isi3mql wrote

[deleted]

0

OmNomCakes t1_isi6ql8 wrote

See, there goes that ego again. Gotta try to make yourself feel and believe you're better than everyone else. Gotta try to talk down to everyone else. What an alpha.

​

Can you imagine someone keeping their same opinion throughout one whole thread over one whole day? And not saying things off subject?! The nerve. Oh well, I guess if the guy only talks about Facebook in a post about Facebook and doesn't concede to your beliefs he must be a shill. The guy posts plenty of shit that isn't pro-facebook related, and most of his comments here aren't facebook related but general tech, software, and hardware related.

​

But I'm going to go ahead and block you so you can get over it and go back to your closed minded better-than-thou mentality.

1

FPOWorld t1_isciktx wrote

We all know how Facebook never lies and misuses data!

3

puffmaster5000 t1_isdqtcz wrote

Sure it does, even if that's true that only for right now. And still even if it never leaves the device they can still use that data to build profiles and force you to watch ads

2

what595654 t1_iskq3zk wrote

Force you to watch ads? You mean like A Clockwork Orange? I think that is illegal.

0

cookiecoookie t1_isdwggy wrote

It leaves the device when it goes to the application for one, who knows what happens in between or in the application itself...

2

BudMcLaine t1_isbu1kg wrote

This feature is also off by default. You have to choose to turn it on.

1

FPOWorld t1_isciw7z wrote

Just like how webcams all only turn on when the light is on? 🤔

5

OmNomCakes t1_iscydbh wrote

That's.. usually a physical circuit. Ie if current is present to turn the cam on, the light is on. Please show me a major manufacturer who has a camera that isn't this way.

5

Biscuits4u2 t1_isdrnnw wrote

You can't really know that's true without detailed schematics, which you ain't gonna get from most webcam mfgs.

4

OmNomCakes t1_isdsmea wrote

Hear me out. Go to Google and type in "logitech webcam schematic" and click on Datasheet Archives or any of the other top links and tell me what you find. Or go ahead and get real fancy and put in a filetype:pdf on there.

​

You can find Apple schematics online with the click of a button. You think basic ass webcam schematics aren't online?

​

​

WITH THAT BEING SAID, it is also ridiculously easy to understand a webcam circuit board even without the diagrams... Just because you do not understand how the board works and think it's complex does not mean everyone shares your dilemma.

1

Biscuits4u2 t1_isdsy5c wrote

I don't have a dilemma. In fact I really DGAF. I use webcams daily for work. What I was saying is you can't say that for EVERY webcam mfg. You speak confidently but you just don't know.

1

OmNomCakes t1_isdtut9 wrote

Hence why I said "send me one that doesn't". Any major brand name one does. Maybe there's some East Asian knock off that doesn't, which would be interesting. I'd be interested to see exactly what it does try to do.

​

It's the same as people going "Yer lightbulb connects to Chiner!" Like yeah, it absolutely does. If you put a packet filter set up to monitor the /16 on your firewall / router you'll see that it reaches out with its firmware version and checks for updates.

​

Just because something 'can be spooky' does not mean that it 'is spooky' and assuming it is without doing due diligence is just silly. But hey, it's the internet, so it's more misinformation than information these days.

1

imforit t1_isbvjsu wrote

For now. It's trivial to change that later.

3

BudMcLaine t1_isc2jlx wrote

Sure, and just like all of their other experimental features, the change will be advertised and you'll likely be givin an option to opt out like many of the other features on their devices.

The thing is, the people making a big stink about all of this are people that weren't going to buy the devices in the first place. They're just complaining to complain.

2

Liet-Kinda t1_isfzlfx wrote

Yet. That you know of. That they’ll admit to.

1

BruceBanning t1_ishbkfy wrote

The raw data is useless. What that data tells the algorithms is the danger, and that’s what will be sold.

1

outragedUSAcitizen t1_it18ija wrote

They can still use algorithms on the data to extrapolate and make a signature of your face/eyes while you do certain things in game or browse the web.

1

MicroSofty88 t1_isbe55p wrote

I wouldn’t call this “personal data”. It directly relates to your use of the device and impacts user experience. Under this definition the accelerometer in your phone is capturing personal data about how your hands are oriented.

28

Sleepy_Tortoise t1_isbpybe wrote

The accelerometer is actually sensitive enough to give a lot more data than you think. It can tell some medical info and whether you're sober or drunk when your phone is in your pocket by picking up signals in the way you walk, and some accelerometers are sensitive enough to pick up the sound vibrations of spoken conversations and discern words. This was all in a cyber security research paper and these things were actually done and proven possible. Getting permission from your phone to use this data vs microphone or camera or something more conspicuous is way easier too.

16

OmNomCakes t1_iscyo9e wrote

Exactly. The light sensitivity on your phone can tell enough to be a major security risk if someone was malicious. The accelerometer would tell people your habits down to creepy levels. But God damn if an avatar in a game makes the faces I do AFTER I choose to turn a setting on myself. XD

6

vanalla t1_isbh4ls wrote

It's data about how you're using the device. Data that, without your input, would not have been generated.

Based on that definition, it is personal data.

If I held a paintbrush in front of a rotating canvas I bought, the final product would be my intellectual property, because without my input said product wouldn't have existed. The company that made the canvas, the rotating device, or the brush are not entitled to that final product in any way.

The final product in this metaphor would be my facial expressions and eye movements.

12

Imaginary-Fun-80085 t1_isbw002 wrote

If a watch can tell you if you've been in a car crash, a phones sensors can definitely get more data than you thought it could.

2

MajorKoopa t1_isblpuc wrote

Every time you put it on, you’re just plugging into a monetized data collector. You’ve paid $1500 to become a product.

5

what595654 t1_iskr639 wrote

Umm. We have been the product for many years now, across many devices. Choose your poison. If the tech is something you are interested, you might as well use it. Life is too short to deprive yourself of the things you want to have. But, by all means, if you can do without, then do.

1

xeno-batt t1_isbontf wrote

Facebook meta whatever you want to call it have been breaching our privacy since it popped out of Zuckerbergs big head.

3

BudMcLaine t1_isbudou wrote

And people have known about it for just about as long. Yet there are still plenty of people using their products.

I guess nobody on here still has a FB acount, Instagram account, Whatsapp account, Giphy. /s

1

xeno-batt t1_isc5h3d wrote

It's a bit like this.......... Companies like his buy up everything, and before you know it that self stirring spoon you bought, made by some independent manufacturer who saves dolphins in Japan is bought up by the likes of Zuckerberg. Avoiding these capitalist vacuums is unavoidable unless you want to live in a tree eating berries 🍒

3

BudMcLaine t1_isc6tek wrote

An apt analogy! I guess I'm of the perspective of not spending my time worrying about things I can't help or change. I'm not a tech developer, I won't be creating an app to take on Meta minus all the darker shit they do. The majority of the tech world uses their products, which means I'm going to end up having to use them in certain scenarios, too.

1

FPOWorld t1_iscj1n1 wrote

I have 0 of these and am quite proud of it.

2

karangoswamikenz t1_isqki9x wrote

His whole idea for making it was to stalk photos of girls in his college. This was the whole fuckin idea. It was an incel creation after he failed on a date. People wonder why it’s so invasive.

1

imforit t1_isbvw6t wrote

We need data protection laws. Such as ones that make all user data collected is the property of the user. Something to stop every single product from being an automatic data harvester

3

TheQuarantinian t1_istxz10 wrote

Impossible - absolutely literally impossible - because unless you deny people the right to agree to things they will always accept the terms that waive the law.

Plus the companies will just ignore it anyway: they ignore rules and laws regarding OSHA, anti-trust, overtime/tip laws, money laundering, environmental, corporate espionage, harassment and discrimination, taxes, inspections, kickbacks and bribes, and insider trading, but they will give up hundreds of billions of potential profits because this new law gets passed? And the government will actually enforce this one?

1

Sniffy4 t1_isceg91 wrote

Is that like a playstation gamepad harvests information about my finger motions?

2

butler7 t1_isbi08c wrote

Obviously.

1

DigMeTX t1_isbibko wrote

I’m guessing it could be used at some point to see what product placements someone might look at etc.. could still be used for targeted advertising.

1

CptCrabcakes t1_isbjf4v wrote

Price is also fucking insane. Not gonna spend that much on a product that is more likely than not selling my data for a profit anyway.

1

BudMcLaine t1_isbtskh wrote

Its an enterprise device. It wasn't built for consumers. They never expected you to buy it.

4

xeno-batt t1_isc4nfk wrote

It's ok, I misread the title, I have the Quest, and even if the new one was half price and aimed at consumers I'd avoid it. The technology is there but so is the bulk.

1

BudMcLaine t1_isc6dhg wrote

With the battery on the back of the strap, the Pro at least seems like it'll be more comfortable despite being a bit heavier. All that weight on the face with Quest 1/2 can get uncomfortable without a counterweight after a while.

2

what595654 t1_iskrojx wrote

That is actually not true. This is just a premium consumer and business headset. This has been confirmed by Meta themselves.

0

CptCrabcakes t1_isbvnpq wrote

Lmao, Keep sucking on zuck

−5

BudMcLaine t1_isc22pk wrote

I'm not sucking on anything, just stating facts. People are up in arms about the cost of a device that isn't meant for the average consumer. There's plenty of legitimate shit to be mad at Zuck about, but the cost of an enterprise gizmo ain't it.

3

xeno-batt t1_isboz49 wrote

It gets tedious after a while and bloody irritating too, vacuum sucked to your head like a divers mask 😉 I hardly use mine now.

2

Macshlong t1_isbsdzp wrote

Let’s get past this shit please.

1

twister55555 t1_isc1xy7 wrote

Reason #43 not to trust meta, let's see if people have actually learned and won't support the zuck

1

FraustFortress t1_isc4vfh wrote

Shit stirring article…to make you scared of shit you don’t need to be scared of

1

basec0m t1_isckapb wrote

What's there to worry about? No one is buying this... are they?

1

bitviper88 t1_isebjv9 wrote

at this point I think we should assume that anything facebook puts out with a camera is spying on you, given the awful track record of theirs when it comes to privacy

1

TheQuarantinian t1_istyrui wrote

From an IM exchange with Zuckerberg in 2004

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

2

Liet-Kinda t1_isfzj8r wrote

Fuck, and I cannot emphasize this enough, all this bullshit

1

BruceBanning t1_ishbg10 wrote

Eye and face tracking will be crucial to advanced VR/AR. It can also be used for very bad things. Like showing you a grid of pictures and finding out what weird shit you’re into. You keep looking at butts in VR chat? A particular type of character?Profiled. Sold.

That’s why Meta/Facebook/Zuckerberg is the last entity you want to fuck around with.

1

zekex944resurrection t1_isib1vm wrote

Yeah hard pass on that. Plus apple’s gonna have a better product and it will likely be more compact.

1

FitFaithlessness2047 t1_ispq0pg wrote

Nah this is fine. The 4 cameras could see you master baiting for 6 years. This ain’t that bad.

1

CaptRon25 t1_isw7qof wrote

You have to ask yourself, Do you trust Zuckerberg? Well, do you punk?

1

thefriendlycouple t1_isdk5ts wrote

Facebooks business model is to sell your personal information to anyone that will pay for it. Why on Earth would you let a company like this into your digital life?

0

Fantastic-Drive-9959 t1_isfj6a1 wrote

I love my Meta Quest. My favorite piece of tech that I’ve bought in years. It’s unreal!

0

Excludos t1_iscyyhx wrote

Does it tho..? Maybe I'm naive, but I fail to see the invasion of privacy from "looked left" or "made a smile".

Every article which talks about privacy forgets the fact that we haven't had any in a long long time. We traded it for convenience

−1

LTareyouserious t1_isdp3q3 wrote

You looked at x ad longer than 2 seconds, cataloged as relevant / effective, ad revenue criteria met. Ad slightly modified to be slightly more blue next time, eye time 2.3s, more ad revenue. All future ads now with more blue. ad y shows up, 4 seconds. Double the frequency of ad y, more ad revenue. ad y blue-purple, down to 3.8s. Back to more blue for more ad revenue.

2

RedPillForTheShill t1_ise0dra wrote

What’s the problem? Do you prefer an ad that pleases you or an ad that doesn’t? This is no different from staring at ads on your phone.

If your problem is ads altogether, my question is, do you want everything paywalled instead?

0