How Facebook tracks you on Android

sidetone said:
The level of severity is different.

A girl should be able to walk outside in a bikini without consequence. If anyone goes to work or to an event in the wrong attire, the minor consequence is just, "go home." Even if she's dressed conservatively, some womanizer will try to hit on her in an attempt to use her. Human traffickers excuses are, well someone was born.

I should be able to take home a huge tv, without someone making up the excuse, "he should have covered it." Suppose I didn't have a big enough towel to cover a big screen tv, that I would of had to make another trip. Suppose someone stole an expensive tool, because I left it in the car, because I couldn't park close enough behind an opaque fence to hide it from prying eyes to take it inside. If I leave a bike out for 2 minutes, someone thinks, well, he shouldn't have left it out. Well, you shouldn't trespass to steal it, and you shouldn't steal it. People make lame excuses. Facebook shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff.

Pearls before swine.

For someone like Zuckerberg who makes excuses, if he can live by his rules for others, why does he pay security to guard his trash can? He's doing what he shouldn't be doing. By his own standards, he's not playing by his rules, because he can't.

Different corporate heads are playing by different rules, some possibly at least they could play by themselves.

But, there are things that are legal that we shouldn't be doing on the Internet depending on various or our own opinions. It doesn't mean it should be exploited. It also doesn't mean the consequences should be disproportionate. For things we should be doing, without a doubt, companies shouldn't be prying on us, because innocent stuff gets used against us, individually or up to the whole society. Information being used against them is also the case for those who say they have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
The US laws are made by money makers. The rules are made by large companies, money will always bypass the US laws, just services, which destroy our planet for entertaining, confidential data spying software plots : facebook, youtube, google, android,...
 
Spartrekus said:
Not having a smartphone means not to work for a large company.
Large corporate / companies oblige employees to use smartphones very often in Europe.
Click to expand...
Citation needed ;) Probably it is true for some jobs. But then you can still use a dumb phone for personal related stuff. I have yet to see a company that obliges all his employees to have a smartphone though.
 
Crivens said:
The problem is not facebook.
The problem is that your firewall does not blackhole all of these 'social networks' analytics and that ilk. ;)
Click to expand...

That's what I do :)
Bash: 
pkg install dnsmasq

cat <<EOF >  /usr/local/etc/dnsmasq.d/dns-cache.conf
listen-address=127.0.0.1
cache-size=1000
EOF

cat <<EOF >  /usr/local/etc/dnsmasq.d/spam-list.conf
address=/facebook.com/127.0.0.66
address=/google-analytics.com/127.0.0.66
EOF

cat <<EOF >  /etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 127.0.0.1
EOF

sysrc dnsmasq_enable=YES
service dnsmasq start

If you are in good mood, add some IP blocking in your IPFW tables to the mix. ;)
 
As I understand it (but I don't understand it that well) there are still some Android phones that don't do this if you don't have Facebook. The last I'd read, some of the manufacturers, especially Samsung, were doing it, but isn't it still possible (and not even that difficult) to find one without including Facebook as a program installed with the base system?
 
scottro said:
there are still some Android phones that don't do this if you don't have Facebook.
Click to expand...
By my understanding it's not the base software in phones which tracks, but third-party applications installed: their devs use FB SDK to add some features, and that SDK's functions get embedded in those apps and do the tracking.
isn't it still possible ... to find one without including Facebook as a program installed with the base system?
Click to expand...
Even when it's preinstalled, it's still possible to disable it by official means.
 
hukadan said:
Citation needed ;) Probably it is true for some jobs. But then you can still use a dumb phone for personal related stuff. I have yet to see a company that obliges all his employees to have a smartphone though.
Click to expand...

Many jobs are like this today, decades ago, it was not a big deal.

VPN,... for security reasons, they have to give smartphones or expensive blackberries to employees.
Too bad, last generation iPhone, wow, ok thanks. Finally, employees have to or feel to have to.
 
Spartrekus said:
Not having a smartphone means not to work for a large company.
Large corporate / companies oblige employees to use smartphones very often in Europe.
Click to expand...
Well, for the last 25 years I've worked for those large computer/IT companies, although not in Europe, but in California. No single one has required the use of the personal cellphone for the job. Rather on the contrary, the use of personal devices (laptops, cellphones, tablets) is usually highly restricted, for security reasons. All my employers in the last 15 years (since wide-spread smart phone usage became a thing) actually offer to pay for a corporate-owned and corporate-controlled second phone that you can use for all work-related functions; I refuse (already one too many devices in my pocket), and simply don't use my personal cellphone for work-related stuff.

By California law, if you use your personal device for work, the employer has to pay you for any extra costs that causes (extra data charges, more SMS). Similar for the use of home internet connections for work. For this reason, most big employers simply pay 100% or a large fraction of the home internet connection for their workers, that's easier than trying to calculate the actual work-related usage byte-by-byte.
 
ralphbsz said:
Well, for the last 25 years I've worked for those large computer/IT companies, although not in Europe, but in California. No single one has required the use of the personal cellphone for the job. Rather on the contrary, the use of personal devices (laptops, cellphones, tablets) is usually highly restricted, for security reasons. All my employers in the last 15 years (since wide-spread smart phone usage became a thing) actually offer to pay for a corporate-owned and corporate-controlled second phone that you can use for all work-related functions; I refuse (already one too many devices in my pocket), and simply don't use my personal cellphone for work-related stuff.

By California law, if you use your personal device for work, the employer has to pay you for any extra costs that causes (extra data charges, more SMS). Similar for the use of home internet connections for work. For this reason, most big employers simply pay 100% or a large fraction of the home internet connection for their workers, that's easier than trying to calculate the actual work-related usage byte-by-byte.
Click to expand...

It depends the type of jobs maybe. Companies pay for private phone calls. Man, working for a company that does do so much money saving?

US are definitely not EU.

If you have a really good job, companies support lot of cost.
 
Spartrekus said:
they have to give smartphones or expensive blackberries to employees
Click to expand...
You're behind the times: Blackberry is already dead for 3 years.
I wish I could use it instead of Android: it's much better and more reliable. I have one, but it's almost impossible to use any third-party applications anymore since phone's OS and software is outdated and not supported anymore. So, I stopped using it several months ago...
 
aragats said:
You're behind the times: Blackberry is already dead for 3 years.
I wish I could use it instead of Android: it's much better and more reliable. I have one, but it's almost impossible to use any third-party applications anymore since phone's OS and software is outdated and not supported anymore. So, I stopped using it several months ago...
Click to expand...

where you live?
 
There are laws for lots of things. There are also often many applicants for jobs, either at big or small companies. Someone just out of school, for example, competing against other people willing to work for lower salaries (assuming the person just out of school will) may ask, Does the company supply a phone and be told no, and try to sue. Maybe this is only with the smaller companies, I don't know, but I would say, at least in the northeastern US, many companies do expect you to use your own (smart)phone for things, and while you can probably demand a phone, or refuse to use your phone, it will hurt your chances. And my impression is that this is growing--companies are more likely, not less, to make you use your own phone.
Take 'em to court if you like and have time to hire a lawyer, take time off from work or jobhunting to be in court, and so on.
 
Spartrekus said:
Not having a smartphone means not to work for a large company.
Large corporate / companies oblige employees to use smartphones very often in Europe.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty common for most employers to expect this even if it is not explicitly requested. It is concernng that one is forced to relinquish control of their privacy in order to survive. Especially when those who have control over your survival are usually less interested in their privacy let alone another individual's. There are some benefits to having a device with you, for things like 2FA. But, I think sometimes its outweighed by the ways they can, will, and do get used to invade your life.
 
alexseitsinger said:
I think it is pretty common for most employers to expect this even if it is not explicitly requested. It is concernng that one is forced to relinquish control of their privacy in order to survive. Especially when those who have control over your survival are usually less interested in their privacy let alone another individual's. There are some benefits to having a device with you, for things like 2FA. But, I think sometimes its outweighed by the ways they can, will, and do get used to invade your life.
Click to expand...

I think that it is just in Europe mostly the case. Because there aren't much jobs at highest paid level, companies ask for more, but they also give more. You can get car, phone, even flat. US is a much different story, and mentalities are different. What is accepted in Europe would not in US.
Asia is actually most efficient and foremost interesting. Companies (or countries) are efficiently supported what interest them the most.
North... actually there won't be, won't be ice or anything. Planet is polluted, damaged,... :-/
 
AlexanderProphet said:
Lol. I am tech literate, I just have different priorities. This kinda reminds me of when vegans get wound up about others not being vegan. It's great that you'd rather suffer than be involved with wrongdoing but have respect for those who choose not to suffer.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood: I wasn't saying you're tech-illiterate. I'm saying there are tech-literate people that recognize the folly of your approach to technology and are fighting to undo your effect. Unfortunately, I cannot have respect for your choice because of how negatively it affects me and the people around me. Otherwise, my rule of thumb is let people do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect me -- that reads a lot more selfish than it sounds in my head.
 
AlexanderProphet said:
Lol. I am tech literate, I just have different priorities. This kinda reminds me of when vegans get wound up about others not being vegan. It's great that you'd rather suffer than be involved with wrongdoing but have respect for those who choose not to suffer.
Click to expand...

I would say, rightfully so. Because it makes no difference. It makes no difference if You or I or anybody decides to [not] use whatever gadget or app. Even if millions and millions of people would decide to not use facebook, that would make a difference only in the reported figures, not in the applied practices.
But then ...

linux->bsd said:
Oh man, you are my worst nightmare. It's people like you that convince app developers and their parent companies that's it's okay to violate their users' privacy
Click to expand...

... if we start to put the blame on each other ("it is just you, because you do not behave in a way I want you to behave"), then we got exactly to the place where the powers-that-be want us to be: quarreling against each other for their behaviour - identifying scapegoats instead of responsibles.
 
PMc said:
... if we start to put the blame on each other ("it is just you, because you do not behave in a way I want you to behave"), then we got exactly to the place where the powers-that-be want us to be: quarreling against each other for their behaviour - identifying scapegoats instead of responsibles.
Click to expand...

But I can't reach Google or Facebook or the rest of them. I can't even reach my government representatives -- they're sold out to the multination corporations. So I have to start with the people I can reach, namely, fellow technophiles around me. Maybe my approach was wrong though.
 
linux->bsd said:
But I can't reach Google or Facebook or the rest of them. I can't even reach my government representatives -- they're sold out to the multination corporations.
Click to expand...
I know.

So I have to start with the people I can reach, namely, fellow technophiles around me. Maybe my approach was wrong though.
Click to expand...

It is certainly important to talk about the matter and create awareness. But for one person you might convince to change behaviour, there will be ten others who do not even understand the issue. :(
And worse: for one you convince there may be another who gets angry because You appear to want to take away their play-thing - and that's not good at all, because it creates bad mood, and: divided we fall.
 
I don't know why 1 person gets blamed, when even those of us who are aware don't have much more choice for mobile Internet use.
linux->bsd said:
But I can't reach Google or Facebook or the rest of them. I can't even reach my government representatives -- they're sold out to the multination corporations. So I have to start with the people I can reach, namely, fellow technophiles around me. Maybe my approach was wrong though.
Click to expand...
Facebook doesn't care what anyone thinks, until their funds are threatened they'll pretend. Their purpose is to abuse, not listen. Asking Facebook to do something is futile, except they'll just use that to identify you further. ?

Facebook:
Messages without a phone number, email, DOB and name will be rejected. ?
"Facebook, stop stealing people's information." << ignore message ?, useful data ? : email, name, phone number, DOB, tone of letter, passive assertive, or aggressive voice, IP >>
--> Sell data to pharmaceutical company for blood pressure medications, then sell data to telemarketer spammers. ??
--> Further processing: Did user volunteer additional information? How can can Facebook exploit user data? Is data amusing to Mark "?" Zuckerberg? Yes? No? ?‍♂️?
--> ???

Google isn't as bad, but there are other options. Duckduckgo, Startpage and Qwant.

Flashplayer didn't care that their product was unsatisfactory and inaccessible.

Facebook had to answer to Congress. Your Senator takes a tally (in my basic perception and an inaccurate tally), because they answer to too many people (interests and PACs) to give customized responses. Your Representative is meant to represent a smaller population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top