• mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Meta does not use your phone’s microphone for ads and we’ve been public about this for years,” the statement read.

    Meanwhile:

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      182
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not defending Facebook, but if you record a video with sound, then the FB app has to have permission to record your audio.

      That said, delete Facebook. Fuck Zuck.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        if you record a video with sound, then the FB app has to have permission to record your audio.

        I can’t tell if you’re trying to explain how it currently works (which I know very well, thanks) or asserting that the current behavior is necessary in order to record with sound.

        It really doesn’t have to be as it is. The OS can provide a record-video API, complete with a user-controlled kill switch and an activity indicator, and the app can call it. The app doesn’t need direct access to the microphone to allow the user to create a file with sound.

        Edit to clarify: I’m not saying that the “permission” doesn’t work as advertised. I’m saying that recording an audio file doesn’t have to require a permission system as coarse and disempowering to users as it is today. I guess the people clicking the downvote button misunderstood.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          ·
          2 months ago

          Pretty sure that qualifies for that permission.

          But the whole point of doing so is to use it in the app, and you for sure can’t do that without the permission.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I think this is more a teleological argument he is making and I agree. We’ve become numb to these permission warnings. Oh this app needs access to my camera because I need to take a photo of something once at registration. Why can’t it link to my default trusted photo app and that app can send a one time transfer to it? I hardly question these permissions anymore since many apps need permissions for rare one off functions. The only thing I deny every single time is my contact list.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Pretty sure that qualifies for that permission.

            I don’t know what you mean. Existing behavior does not provide the control or visibility that I described.

            One important difference is that the “permissions” in the screen shot are effectively all-or-nothing: if you don’t agree to all of them, then you don’t get to install the app. They’re not permissions so much as demands.

            (Some OS do have settings that will let you turn them off individually after installation, but this is not universally available, is often buried in an advanced configuration panel, leaves a window of time where they are still allowed, and in some cases have been known to cause apps to crash. Things are improving on this front with new OS versions, but doing so in microscopic steps that move at a glacial pace.)

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              2 months ago

              If your app touches the camera and mic, it will show up on that screen that it does so. “Using the API” (which is just how the OS works) doesn’t prevent it from appearing on that screen, especially when you’re doing so for the purpose of putting video and audio in posts.

              • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                If your app touches the camera and mic, it will show up on that screen that it does so.

                Showing up on that screen is no substitute for what is actually needed:

                • Individual control (an easy and obvious way to allow or deny each thing separately)
                • Minimal access (a way to create a sound file without giving Facebook access to an open mic)
                • Visibility (a clear indication by the OS when Facebook is capturing or has captured data)
                • Farid@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  All of those things are implemented in modern Android. Well, almost.

                  • Whenever the app wants to use microphone an OS popup asks you if you want to give the app permission to use the feature. The options are “when using app”, “only this time” (it will give the app one-time-use access to the mic) and “never”. If you click the 1st or 3rd options, you wouldn’t see the popup again and you’ll have to change the permission from settings. If you choose the 2nd option, you can manually choose to give permission each time it’s requested.
                  • This is impossible? The OS can either let the app use the mic or not, it can’t tell what the app is doing with the mic. Unless you mean give a one-time permission this time, but not in the future, then we covered that in previous point.
                  • Android always shows a green indicator on screen (upper right corner) when any app is using the microphone or camera API. Well, almost always, some system apps might not trigger it. But if you want to see which app is using mic/camera you can tap the indicator.
                  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    All of those things are implemented in modern Android.

                    No, they are not all implemented on any version of Android that I’ve seen. I don’t know about iOS.

                    Well, almost.

                    Right. We don’t need just a few pieces of what I listed. We need them all.

                    an OS popup asks you if you want to give the app permission to use the feature.

                    That’s not a bad interface, but it doesn’t address what I wrote: Individual control.

                    Why should email address, sexual orientation, and home address be lumped all together into a single permission? Lumping installed apps and search history together isn’t much better. Why should a music player, which obviously needs access to music files, be also granted access to biometric data like voice recordings?

                    This is impossible? The OS can either let the app use the mic or not,

                    Of course it’s possible. The OS can record the file and then hand it off to the app. No microphone access required.

                    Android always shows a green indicator on screen (upper right corner) when any app is using the microphone

                    That alone is better than nothing, but not enough. How is a user to know if something was captured when the screen was off?

                    These things are indeed improving as new versions come out, but at a glacial pace. Heck, it was ages before Android stopped letting apps spy on each other’s log messages. It’s now at version 15 and still doesn’t have basic controls like restricting network access.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Nobody said it was the same thing as listening in the background. It’s still relevant and important.

        I trust that most adults understand the implications of an exploitable permission and a strong incentive to abuse it, as well as the track record of corporate denials.

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          Using the permission to record audio triggers an on-screen indicator that the mic is recording. Someone would probably notice it on 24/7 recording. Someone would have also by now found the constant stream of network traffic to send the audio to be analyzed, because they also aren’t doing that on-device.

      • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why wouldn’t you want to share your fitness data with the company that will sell it to the company setting your health “insurance” premiums? </s>