yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[EVO 4G General] piscesjoey:
I'm guilty of being one of them who doesn't check permissions, but now that I read this, I surely will for now on, thanks Matt!
[EVO 4G General] HipKat:
So, an app that includes a function that allows you to send messages to people on your friends list shouldn't have permission to access messaging???

Hmmmm
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
???

How does that make any sense?

Because you can send messages on the Facebook messaging system it should be able to read, edit and even send text and picture mail?

Um, no.

Its the same thing as if the AIM app wanted the same rights.

AIM messaging has nothing to do with my texts.

These are two different types of messaging systems and there's no excuse nor any good reason that this app should be able to send receive or even read my texts/pictexts.

Furthermore, we've been able to use the chat program previous to 1.5.4 and yet back then the app didn't want those permissions.

Gochat doesn't want those permissions.

No excuse.
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
Fred makes a cracking post on facebook, I want to send it to Jeff, but he's a Luddite who doesn't want anything to do with facebook, but he has a mobile phone, so I forward the post to him via SMS, which of course the facebook app will need access to in order to forward the post.

Jeff then texts me an awesome reply that I want to share with everyone on facebook, so I publish the sms through the facebook app, which again will need permission to access my sms in order to read it and post it online for me.

Does that make sense?
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
I can share things between apps just fine without them having the ability to read my texts/pictexts and having the ability to send them.

In fact, I can share something via the Tapatalk app on Facebook....yet... Tapatalk doesn't need access to my Facebook password.

I can even share something on Tapatalk via text message.

Yet....Tapatalk doesn't need access to my texts.

Sorry, not a viable reason.
[EVO 4G General] Rejinderi:
Is this function inside the facebook app? There must be some reason why facebook would declare such a permission I believe it won't have any ill intentions tho.
[EVO 4G General] Phateless:
Cm7 lets you revoke permissions. Good catch!
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
Not used tapatalk myself.

So if I were to send you a text message, you could publish that on FB without logging in?
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
Of course I have to be logged into Facebook via the app or mobile browser but, and this is the point, my SMS app doesn't need my facebook password to do it

Furthermore, I've never even heard or seen ANY functionality you're speaking of.

So I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest it and why you're trying to justify this obvious breach of security.
[EVO 4G General] thlinx:
Just another reason to be done with Facebook and migrate to Google plus
[EVO 4G General] detusueno:
not even 10% of my friends list will ever use Google+ seriously. g+ is for geeking with people you hardly know, fb is for communication with real friends.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
Bull.

Maybe right now but it's already taking off.

Facebook started off like this too, only certain colleges could join then only college students now everyone.

I know some people that are far from "geeks" that are loving Google + more than Facebook.

Now, is it going to take a few years before Google + is a big as Facebook?

Sure, Facebook is 7 years old mind you.

But I have no doubt in it.

Google + is still in beta.

Furthermore wxyz channel 7 in Detroit has a Google + :p
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
Doing some digging it's probably for the same reason why angry birds had the permissions, in app carrier billing via sms.

Now I can't find any features within the app which would allow that, maybe it can be done via the website so if you make a purchase in a Facebook web app perhaps it will send a sms from your phone to make the payment.

So, rather than start some paranoid ramblings guessing at what it could all be about and how they're going to bankrupt everyone by sending premium rate text messages every second, I thought it'd be an idea to actually ask Facebook, so you never know, we might get an answer.

This may shed some light on the matter

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ions-to-bring-credits-to-mobile-browsers.html
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
"paranoid ramblings"

Okay dude, we get it, you don't have enough fights at home so you come on here.

How ridiculous.

Warning people about app permission changes that make no sense and are very, in fact one of the worst invasions of privacy possible on a phone is "paranoid ramblings"?

K. :rolleyes:
[EVO 4G General] detusueno:
i'd put cold hard cash that g+ doesn't get the same level of adoption or use as facebook. facebook's purpose is to connect people you know, it's the classical social network with a focus on communication. google just got worried because they saw twitter and facebook starting to generate news/content/link distribution because of their implementations of newsfeeds. so they made g+ a content newsfeed with communication tacked in. regular people dont give two ****s about that. fb understands that and that's why they integrated skype, it may be limited but they know that's what people will use. i'm already seeing more use of skype because of it. i skyped with more people in the last month then i "hanged out" or used google talk video altogether since day 3 of g+'s launch.

its obvious your pushing an agenda for some reason. probably a google fanboy (wtf?).
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
I was going to read your post until I saw this.

Enjoy your day because I won't reply further to you.

That is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard on the internet.

"OMGZ U A GOOGL FANZ BOI CUZ U CONCERN BOUTZ FACEBOOK APP GETTIN IN YO SMS/MMS"

One of the most pathetic name calling attempts I've ever read or experienced ever.
[EVO 4G General] detusueno:
what I find funny is your concern about fb when g+ is built around the same information collection directives used to power google's main cash cow: advertising. like i said it's obvious. and keep using big bold letters it makes you look smart.
[EVO 4G General] samuel346:
Strange because I just checked the Google plus app permissions and it doesn't want anything to so with my texts.

Here just to argue and name call huh?
[EVO 4G General] HipKat:
I think the Paranoia Patrol is working overtime today....
[EVO 4G General] Mohawka:
Somehow I think there might be ill intentions here. With all the times fb has been in the "news" for privacy concerns, the whole facial recognition thing, and not to mention http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/z...dumb-f-cks-2004-facebook-privacy-2618399.html. Im sure that if you were to search engine a bit u might even find an article or three that would claim fb as a cia database. Just makes me glad I've never used fb. But Honstly Google isn't any better for privacy if u dig in to it. Just my two cents. Vote Ron Paul for the hopes of legalized freedom
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
HipKat, you're absolutely free to let any old app in the world get into your most personal business, that's not my problem or issue.

However, it is people's right to know what's going on.

To claim this is "paranoia" is just absurd.

Facebook has a history of privacy concerns, especially lately, and then they all the sudden sneak in the ability to read/edit/send sms/mms with no apparent app functionality whatsoever?

Sorry that I believe people should be made aware of that. My bad. :rolleyes:
[EVO 4G General] OstrichSak:
Google+ fo lyfe! :D
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
Actually I was referring to starting my own paranoid ramblings, you keep yours to yourself :)

Most of the so called privacy invasions by FB have been trumped up into things that never actually happened, such as the furore over their terms saying they could sell information about users to 3rd parties, they never did, and FB removed that clause. Many other "concerns" are over the legalese used in the T&C which is subsequently changed to make the intention clearer.

FB have said they want developers to produce apps for them, with online purchases through credits, and to pay for those credits carrier charging will be used. In order to do that the FB app will need access to SMS.

But of course that could all be smoke and mirrors, they could be mining our text messages for information to sell onto advertisers, or hoping someone slips up and gives them state secrets perhaps, so they can continue on their plan for world domination mwhahahahahaha!!! That's just as likely isn't it. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
With all due respect would you stop justifying invading our privacy like this with "in app billing"

There are plenty of apps that have "in app billing" that don't have permissions to go into my texts.

In fact, even Angry birds removed that because it's not necessary

In fact, of all the apps that have in app billing I can't seem to find one that has reading/sending/editing sms/mms permissions.

Plus, Facebook doesn't even have in-app-billing, yet. [If they ever will]
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
Sure, they could pay Google to deal with in-app-billing (as my apps with in-app purchases do), but why do that and have their own billing system on their website? Especially when the apps in question won't be on the android market, but only available through FB.

Makes more financial sense to use a single billing system, especially when you want to compete with Google rather than support them financially.

FB have been trialing their credit system since 2009, so again it would be logical to get some of those testing it to do so via an app, and it'd be daft to get them to test with something other than the official FB android app.

As for privacy, how is an app sending a text message on your behalf to pay for something, and only actioning the reply to that message, actually invading your privacy?

Sure if it's reading all your messages and forwarding them to FB to be read/sold on, but seriously, how is sending a message to pay for something invading my privacy?

Isn't the real issue here that the Google permissions information don't go far enough, it's all well and good saying "Modify SD card contents" but modify in what way? Renaming every file on your SD card is modifying it, so you could be giving permission to do just that.

Maybe Google should insist on more information from developers so under "Modify SD card contents" it could have "Create a cache folder for storage of offline content" and you can relax, knowing what it should actually be doing.

Of course, all the above is BS, they really are planning on reading all your messages and selling the juicy bits on to Mills and Boon, or similar. They're part of the evil alliance of web corporations, the US government is actually behind it getting companies like FB to eavesdrop on people in the name of The War Against Terror. It doesn't take a genius to see that. After all, how come they're still operational after all the previous privacy infringements? Two words man, two words I tell you: Uncle Sam.

I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA weren't involved somewhere, think of the information they could get from people's text messages.

I bet now the cat is out of the bag, we'll either see apps within FB with the ability to purchase them (just to hide the fact they're copying off all your SMS data), or they'll drop the permissions and claim it was all a mistake, and then you'll know we were right.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
If you actually read instead of just arguing for the sake of arguing you would see the permissions are very clear.

None of these permissions have ANYTHING to do with in-app-billing bud.
[EVO 4G General] HipKat:
Dude, damn near every app has permissions that allow it into other aspects of the phone. This really seems no different.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
Wow... you really don't see a problem with this? I think I've lost all respect for you. Seriously.

Facebook sells your information folks.

You realize this right?

Show me an app that wants permissions for things that it has no business in?

Exactly.

I cannot believe that you people are actually arguing this.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

dirkyd3rk just told me that he deleted facebook for this very reason.

Privacy and app permissions.

You people need to wake the **** up
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
I totally agree, if an app wants to use google or set up a redirect to their own website for in app billing then they don't need anything to do with SMS.

Course if they have nothing to do with Google, and they're using carrier billing, then they will needed SMS access, but you know, it's FB so it's going to be malicious, that much is obvious.

That picture is perfect, thanks for posting it. It clearly shows that it wants SMS access, but doesn't say why.

If, for instance, under "Send SMS messages" it actually had (from the developer) more details, such as "Send premium rate SMS every 10 minutes at $10 a pop" then you could go "Woah! That sounds dodgy, I won't install that naughty app" where as such an app currently would just have "Allows application to send SMS messages. Malicious applications may cost you money by sending messages without your confirmation." which leaves it up to you to decide if it's going to be malicious (Facebook) or not.

Also, don't forget that it uses Fine (GPS) Location, so FB will know exactly where you are when they come and get you.

Oh and that Google search you linked to (very lazy btw) doesn't help, browsing through the first page of links its all suggestion and innuendo, no actual sales of personal data :(
[EVO 4G General] MikeWjF:
Right on, facebook is always sneaking in new ways to exploit their user's information. The new one that annoys me is how uncommon friends can see all of my interactions with people not on their friends list. Be careful if you are friends with your boss on FB, he or she will be able to see when you comment on someone's wall that does not have your boss as a friend. Which I think is an invasion on yours and your friend's privacy.
[EVO 4G General] DirtyShroomz:
Glad you know the future. You're comparing a 7 year old program vs a 3 month old program still in PRIVATE BETA. I know tons of non-geek who only have computers DUE TO FACEBOOK already switch to G+ because of ease of use and way better social integration such as "Huddles". You've skyped more than "hanged out" because skype is open to the public and has been around for a long time. Most people don't even know that G+ has a built in video chat feature.

Calling people a fan boy due to warning of an app permission? There is absolutely 0 reason as to why my facebook app should be able to send or receive a text message. "Sharing a text via facebook" and "sending a text" are two extremely different things.
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
I know it's shocking how they use that to exploit the information by, um, how exactly?

It's well publicised by humorous articles in the media how important it is to be careful what you post on the internet, not just Facebook (those evil exploitative malicious buggers). I think the worst thing they do is force people to use Facebook. That is down right immoral of them.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
Don't forget the permission to read your texts too. ;)

No excuse.
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
In all seriousness, I do think its great that surprising permission requirements are brought to people's attention, as it encourages people to check more often for actual malicious software.

Maybe one day Google will improve the permission descriptions to make it clear exactly what they are used for.

Reading of a text could be for confirmation of purchase.

Say you have a game where the first level is free, and to unlock the remaining levels you need to pay $1 via carrier billing, a text message is sent, but you're abroad so you don't have data roaming, a text comes back, it's read, and the game is unlocked.

Similarly my fiancée doesn't have a data plan on her mobile, so without SMS confirmation, she'd not be able to do anything until she got to a WIFI network.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
You're trying to find logic where there is no justification.

Lets pretend that this is all for in app billing

(that's BS but this is a hypothetical)

There's no in app billing for Facebook right now! So even if it is, there's no need to have those permissions right now.

And please don't suggest they would waste their time adding the permissions because it might be "coming soon"

They can't even get push notifications right.

For the record, that was just a hypothetical.

There's no way in hell this has to do with in app billing.
[EVO 4G General] MikeWjF:
Whatever those permissions are used for, I don't play games or make purchases through facebook of any kind, so denying those interactions doesn't hinder my enjoyment of using their free service that they don't force me to use. If they want to deny my use of facebook for blocking those capabilities, so be it. Until then, I'm using facebook without them accessing my text messages.

They also change your privacy settings on the desktop version without letting you know from time to time. I guess I'm supposed to check those every day to make sure the content that I trust to be private, is still private, since they are "privacy" settings you know.
[EVO 4G General] xaccers:
FB has been testing their credits system for the past 2 years, using carrier billing to buy credits.

Pet Society has in game purchasing using carrier billing.

Ok, lets say that we're right though, and it's nothing to do with carrier billing, what is it for?

What text messages are FB going to send, and what are they going to do with all those text messages they're going to read? And how are they going to avoid litigation for breaching the UK and EU's data protection laws? (I'm sure Uncle Sam will bail them out with their CIA buddies, but lets pretend that isn't the case).

Not to mention all those customers calling their carriers demanding refunds for unsolicited text messages.
[EVO 4G General] DirtyShroomz:
Why shouldn't I worry about that? I think everybody should have access to my telephone and my text messages.
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
I agree. I don't even get why we have social security numbers.

Everyone should have access to everything.
[EVO 4G General] OstrichSak:
By the way, thanks for taking the time to point this out. Ignore all the people not intelligent enough to understand how this could potentially harm them later. Those of us that get how important security is when it comes to your personal information thank you.

The sheeple can continue marching along in whatever direction the herdsmen tell them to go w/o asking any questions hoping they won't take advantage of that trust to march them over a cliff it it benefits them. Personally, I refuse to be in the hard to begin with as I'm capable of making my own decisions.
[EVO 4G General] Indirect:
I don't see why anyone reading my text messages is a bad thing, I just think matty is a racist. :3

On a serious note: I work with security for computers quite constantly and if I saw any program on the computer with a similar level of an invasion of privacy, it would be removed by any means needed. I think this is bogus since they do not show any direct link to a feature on the app directly so why should I have to accept it just because I can't use facebook? Screw facebook, acquire real people.
[EVO 4G General] JonnyBDroid:
Being new to Android, but coming from a background of support/recovery in Linux/Windows shouldn't the default position be the principle of 'least privilege'? (e.g. not running Linux/Windows as permanent root/admin & escalating privilege only when necessary.) I understood this was the way the Android system is set up.

Forgetting, for a moment, that this specific app is FB – is it not good general practice to avoid installing any apps which seeks permissions that it does not need? :confused:

This is not aimed at or to disagree with anyone, but more me checking if I have misunderstood some of the core principles of the Android system integrity?

On a more personal level, as someone who does not 'use' FB, but keeps a few profiles solely for the purpose of testing/keeping up to date (with its systems et al) to be able to support others (including my teenage daughters who do use it), I have to say their track record & past experience means I would apply the principle of least privilege more rigorously to anything FB related.
[EVO 4G General] github:
So, you don't really have a facebook page, do you? I'd worry about the entire site more than some silly app with tin-foil-hat permissions. Your information has already been sold, despite what Facebook would like you to perceive.

edit: I should add that I agree that these permissions are not needed. Also, I don't have/use Facebook. I'm sure Google already has enough of my personal information.
[EVO 4G General] JonnyBDroid:
Assuming the question was directed at me... no, I don't have any info on FB (nor would I post any - all fake names with throwaway email addys), so I am not bothered on a personal, individual, level. In fact, I agree with you & wouldn't touch FB (as a proper user) with someone elses proverbial bargepole :D

I was more questioning the ethos of installing an app (any app) that seeks permissions it does not genuinely need in a general sense, as much to check my own understanding (being a newish Android user). :)
[EVO 4G General] mattykinsx:
Let me just say this:

I am severely disgusted with XDA/Evo Sub-forum.

This thread isn't titled:

"what do you think Facebook needs these permissions for"

nor was it

"do you have a Facebook?"

and it definitely wasn't:

"what names or psychological issues can you accuse me of having because I'm pointing this out?"

It was a friendly warning about ridiculous, unnecessary permissions that could potentially put your private information [text/picture messages] in jeopardy (and possibly one of the biggest privacy breaks ever, that you approve of whether you realize it or not)

I can see why some developers don't/rarely support their work on these forums.