
Facebook Scans What You Send Other People on Messenger App - randomerr
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-04/facebook-scans-what-you-send-to-other-people-on-messenger-app
======
tristanj
Old news. Facebook has been doing this since at least 2009, I recall seeing an
article where Facebook censored all links (including those in private
messaegs) to thepiratebay.org [0]

They also crawl links you share in private messages to grab the title, intro,
and favicon to generate that clickable widget link thing.

[0] [https://torrentfreak.com/facebook-blocks-all-pirate-bay-
link...](https://torrentfreak.com/facebook-blocks-all-pirate-bay-
links-090408/)

~~~
dylan604
I have the same initial reaction. However, even though we 1% of tech geeks
that are paying attention and are aware of these things, how many of us have
had people slightly tilt their head sideways in confusion when we try to
inform them of this stuff. I'm sure we've all been labeled kooks, conspiracy
nut, tin foil hat wearers, etc in the past.

This is one of those situations where the mass populace just didn't want to
understand, couldn't understand or combination of both, but the mass populace
is finally starting to see just how much of this tracking stuff has been going
on. I still think it's not enough, though.

~~~
edwhitesell
It's similar to the activities of most anti-virus/malware agents on computers.
Of course, one could argue those cases are focused much more on the security
aspects, rather than Facebook's revenue-generating motives to see what you do
for advertising purposes.

------
Jerry2
FTA: _“For example, on Messenger, when you send a photo, our automated systems
scan it using photo matching technology to detect known child exploitation
imagery_

Ah yes, the "Think of the children" [1] argument. This is the favorite
argument of censorship [2] lawmakers, dictators and everyone who wants to
destroy personal liberties and privacy. They always invoke "think of the
children" arguments because you look like a monster if you oppose it.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children)

[2]: [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-31/wolf-internet-
censorsh...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-31/wolf-internet-
censorship/5229690)

~~~
saboot
What do you propose as an alternative? This isn't govt mandated censorship,
it's a private company not wanting to become a CP sharing portal.

~~~
greggarious
I think the parent's (unstated) implication is that a system that can detect
and block from a list of CP hashes could also be used to block any other
content.

For example, let's say I create an eye catching flyer image detailing
locations for a peaceful protest against the firing of a Mueller. Such a
system could be used to block it.

Right now no one opposes building it, but the capacity once created can be
easily abused.

------
linuxftw
There seems to be a cottage industry around making words more palatable when
it comes to tech privacy.

"Scans" should be "reads and stores"

"What you send to other people" should be "private messages, images, and
videos"

"What you send to other people" implies that there was no expectation of
privacy in the first place, which (while true) I think does not match the
'normal' person's expectations or understanding.

News organizations need to be more candid with the public about how their
information is being inspected and stored instead of using slick language to
downplay the distasteful practices of many organizations.

~~~
aserafini
Another example of charitable sanitisation: referring to personal data being
'monetized' rather than 'sold'. Information is sold when advertisers can
target sets of users based on their personal data.

~~~
jpttsn
But, if I _sell_ you an ebook, you would expect a copy to read, right?

Accusing Facebook of _selling_ data makes it easy for them to rebut: no data
changed hands.

Similar to accusing copyright infringers of “stealing” movies. It muddies the
waters.

~~~
linuxftw
I disagree. If I can query some API and it gives me some output, the data has
changed hands. I can't really imagine a system where one has 'access' to data
and does not receive it, unless it's in some kind of "Data Library" and
nothing is allowed to leave the premises.

------
lz400
Is the recent attack on Facebook a coordinated effort to kill Zuck's office
run?

Don't get me wrong, I think all the flak Facebook is getting is deserved but
there's little in the revelations coming lately after Cambridge Analytica that
is really new. However the media backlash is a lot, a lot bigger and more
sustained that I thought it'd be, even here in HN. I'm not one for conspiracy
theories but could it be partially orchestrated by some political powers that
be to kill his political aspirations? Or even if it didn't start that way, I
guess it could have been helped by this.

~~~
paxys
There is no way Zuckerberg was ever going to hold any political office. Why on
earth would he even want to? He has WAY more power and influence simply by
controlling the Facebook empire and being worth $60+ billion.

All this talk started because he hired a top Obama campaign manager _as a
lobbyist for his foundation_ , and somehow people got "he obviously wants to
be President" out of it.

~~~
dTal
Well no, he also went on a grand 'meet the plebs' tour, and recently claimed
that religion was 'very important to [him]' after historically being an
atheist, to name just two highly suggestive actions in addition to the one you
mention.

------
nstj
So Facebook Messenger has the option of end-to-end encryption of chats when
you use "Secret Conversations", which are encrypted using the Signal Protocol
[0], [1]

Is there any indication that FB _doesn 't_ scan the contents of these messages
before encrypting them with your own key and sending them across the wire?

[0]: [https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-
app/1084673321594605...](https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-
app/1084673321594605?helpref=uf_permalink) [1]:
[https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-
encrypted-...](https://www.wired.com/2016/10/facebook-completely-encrypted-
messenger-update-now/)

~~~
Mandatum
Have tested this myself with known bad links (ie malware, spam and piracy
websites). None were blocked.

Steve Weis was involved in its development (previously PrivateCore, Google
Security Engineer where he developed 2FA and the keyczar library) and jumped
on the defense after it was initially announced. Earlier versions were
reviewed externally by some pretty well-known cryptographers.

That being said, meta-data around use of E2E encryption in Messenger is still
an issue since it's not enabled by default.

~~~
nstj
Oh nice one. Did the links get blocked when Messenger was in “non-Secret”
mode?

~~~
Mandatum
Yep. Same with the Apple crash character bug from a few weeks ago. Also when
linking .EXE's and .SCR's, I didn't see any hits on the server. Facebook
blocks direct linking to executable files, and usually does a HEAD request
against the web server - in this case I didn't see anything when sending via
Secret.

~~~
nstj
Great catch - appreciate the follow up.

------
TYPE_FASTER
When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started
seeing ads for diapers.

After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is being data mined
for advertising or some other source of revenue.

~~~
logicallee
Would you rather see ads for cat food? (Even though you don't have a cat.)
This is not a rhetorical question: please answer it.

The reason for this question is that even though you don't have a cat lots of
people do! It's absolutely not a false dichotomy. Either people who have no
cats must see cat food advertisements (bad choice), or cat food advertisements
must be shown to people who probably have a cat (better choice). There's
really nothing in between.

This is the world we live in, and you should prefer to see baby diaper ads vs
cat food ads, when you do have a baby but don't have a cat. The statistical
number of cats or babies is irrelevant. As you may know, Google is pretty good
(not perfect) about not allowing keyword targeting that gets down to
individual people so the privacy implications really are pretty limited.

-

That said, I have a funny story to share. (About adapting to this world.) I am
learning a foreign language and I decided to watch baby cartoons in that
language. But before I did, I thought to myself, "Okay if I start searching
YouTube for cartoons for 1 year olds, pretty soon Google is going to decide
that I'm a new mother and I'll see nothing but baby cartoons in my feed for
the next 5 years."

I was sure enough in my reasoning that I went ahead and _created a brand new
Google account_ for the express purpose of being able to pollute its YouTube
feed. I only watch stuff related to that language learning on that account.

This had the exact effect that I wanted. That youtube became absolutely
_awesome_ for spending focused time on my language learning, using all sorts
of related videos. It includes people documenting what life in that country is
like for tourists and foreigners, it includes foreign-language teachers'
channels, it includes related cartoons and films at a good level for me, it
includes political speeches from that country subtitled in English. I couldn't
be happier with the result.

You know those acknowledgments we've been clicking through for the past few
years by Google saying "Hey!! We're doing this. READ THIS"? I think it makes
what they do pretty above-board.

As a consumer we're able to adapt to this, but it's not something I have any
problem with.

(Disclaimer: I indirectly contributed to Google in the past but not now, I
would definitely list it as a disclaimer if it were happening now but I
remember that it changed how I wrote about Google especially when I was the
most critical of them, so I think it's worth mentioning still. I am a bit
nicer when I'm really pissed off at them as a consumer - but this is not the
case in this instance.)

\---

EDIT: I carefully edited this as it is falling to -1. I stand by the
sentiments in this comment: they are correct. Downvoters are wrong.

~~~
lostlogin
You’re ok with someone reading your mail then spamming you after learning
something from it? Does that only apply to email, or physical mail too (with
your permission in a vast TOS document of course). What if someone looked in
your windows then sent you advertising based on what they saw? I’m always a
bit startled at what people are ok with.

~~~
jehlakj
He means a disposable, anonymous mailbox that is subscribed to only the
relevant sources.

------
langitbiru
Yann LeCun (the famous Deep Learning researcher) gave the reason behind this:
"WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption. Facebook Messenger doesn't, which allows
it to provide enhanced services using AI-based content understanding (the
information is not shared with 3rd parties). Both are owned/run by Facebook.
It gives you a choice."

[https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/977746081877512193](https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/977746081877512193)

------
username223
> "For example, on Messenger, when you send a photo, our automated systems
> scan it using photo matching technology to detect known child exploitation
> imagery or when you send a link, we scan it for malware or viruses," a
> Facebook Messenger spokeswoman said in a statement.

"A Facebook Messenger spokeswoman" who wouldn't put her name to the statement?
Ugh. Child porn is terrible, but very few people produce it or want to look at
it. On the other hand, opaque and unaccountable algorithmic censorship hurts
everyone.

~~~
barryduffman
If they didn't scan and detect child porn, there would be articles about how
they're letting people get away with sharing child porn on Messenger. It seems
there's no way for Facebook to win here, given that people want both complete
privacy and also no illicit activity on the platform.

~~~
lostlogin
> If they didn't scan and detect child porn, there would be articles about how
> they're letting people get away with sharing child porn on Messenger.

No there wouldn’t be. Do you hear that about iMessage, SMS, email or the
numerous other services?

~~~
barryduffman
Google does scan for child pornography in Gmail:
[https://www.pcworld.com/article/2461400/how-google-
handles-c...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/2461400/how-google-handles-
child-pornography-in-gmail-search.html).

This is done with PhotoDNA, a system used by many large tech companies for
child pornography detection:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA).

~~~
lostlogin
Thanks for that link - I can’t edit my above comment now to note that some
scanning does happen. I wonder how well it works, as the false positive rates
must be huge? The idea of someone looking at my account and playing abuse/not
abuse roulette is disturbing.

~~~
barryduffman
Well it's an automated system, so it's highly unlikely that someone is reading
all (or any) of your messages. The volume of messages Facebook and Google
process every day is astronomical, so no manual oversight process would scale.
It's similar to how email spam filters have worked in a completely automated
fashion for years. In this case, PhotoDNA works by comparing image hashes, so
it probably has fewer false positives than spam filters.

~~~
nugi
But with a powerful search tool, one could go hunting for any 'type' of person
they wanted based on social association info, geolocation or keywords. Its not
benign or unweildy just because its large.

------
rco8786
Why is this newsworthy? Did people think Facebook somehow didn't have access
to what was being sent across its own platform?

~~~
Shank
Yes, they have access. The point is more that they have an automated system
scanning and flagging messages, specifically so that they're reviewed by
humans, for content they don't want on their platform.

My landlord has access to my apartment, and I certainly don't expect them to
just pop in and take things out that they don't like -- I at least expect some
kind of notice. You can apply this to basically anything in the physical
world, like mail. Having the capability to access does not equate to having
permission to access.

~~~
konceptz
In many states (all of them?) landlords are specifically not legally allowed
to “just pop in” without reasonable cause or sufficient notice.

So yes I agree with your statement but in this example it’s already a law.

------
DeepYogurt
So they mention the encrypted mode, but they don't confirm that facebook
doesn't read those (either can't or won't). Can anyone confirm one way or
another?

~~~
nstj
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted - it's IMO one of the most important
questions about this post.

------
paulie_a
Messenger is such low quality garbage. People might receive a message, you
might get a notification 2 months later. But you will always get a
notification about some phantom message.

The dark patterns, ugly UI and unreliability, all with zero privacy.

~~~
acchow
These problems are why I left gchat. Very unreliable multi-client syncing.

Messenger has been rock solid for me.

------
p49k
This actually sounds reasonable; most other messaging programs do the same in
order to provide previews, thumbnail images, scan for malicious links or spam,
etc.

~~~
DRAGONERO
Does Apple do this with iMessage? I don't think they can, even.

~~~
criddell
They could. Correct me if I'm wrong but users don't see which public keys have
been used to encrypt the message's symmetric key. Theoretically Apple could
easily and invisibly include themselves as a recipient.

~~~
nstj
You're exactly right and I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Apple can
add additional keys to iMessage messages and thus view them in transit - they
say this themselves in their own security white paper[0].

[0]:
[https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf](https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf)

~~~
oarsinsync
> Apple can add additional keys to iMessage messages and thus view them in
> transit - they say this themselves in their own security white paper

I just read the section on iMessage (from around page 49) and I can’t see
where this is written. Can you point to the part where they say this?

~~~
nstj
Page 51:

> The private keys for both key pairs are saved in the device’s Keychain and
> the public keys are sent to Apple’s directory service (IDS), where they are
> associated with the user’s phone number or email address, along with the
> device’s APNs address.

~~~
mrep
I'm no security engineer but wouldn't that require Apple to have access to the
private key, whereas the whitepaper says they only have access to the public
key?

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
They can't mess up with the private key (at least this is what they say, and
we can't verify that as their software is closed source). But they're free to
manipulate the public key which is used during the encryption phase.

For Apple as a company, not having access to iMessages is the safest thing to
do, and I believe them when they say they can't access them in the current
setup and are not willing to change that. It's because this would change their
status from hardware/software vendor to telecommunications provider, with all
related problems and costs - and they don't need any of these, so the best
option is just to shield themselves from any user-to-user communication.

------
hmate9
Ofcourse they do. On one hand it’s absolutely surprising that such a piece is
considered “news” but on the other hand at least the general public (not just
people in CS) are paying more attention to their privacy.

But in this case I think it’s 100% fine, even expected in order to stop bad
content (porn, abuse etc) from going through

~~~
pmlnr
stopping "Bad content" is a slippery slope, especially on a network, where
most only talk to people they actually know and who are usually using real
identities. Keep in mind it's private messaging we're talking about.

~~~
drngdds
It's really not a dangerous slippery slope. If Facebook starts moderating
messages too harshly, people will just move to another platform.

~~~
908087
I heard the same thing about Facebook and Google invading privacy "people will
just move to another platform if they start getting too creepy!".

Still waiting on that...

------
dvtv75
I just showed this to a friend of mine, who turned very white.

It seems that she's been sending some rather saucy texts, plus a topless photo
or two and a few panty shots.

She went straight back to Facebook, though, and really doesn't seem to care
that she's feeding the beast..

------
mobilemidget
Not a FB user here, but with all this bad press going non stop, I start to
wonder how can I figure out who makes money on FB stock going down?

~~~
egze
Puts buyers, calls sellers. Look up options.

~~~
arijun
I think they were trying to insinuate there is some big player with a short on
FB manipulating the news.

~~~
koko775
Not outlandish, but also not aware of any evidence:
[https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/facebooks-influence-
has...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/facebooks-influence-has-long-
drawn-underhanded-attacks-from-rupert-murdoch-wired-reports.html)

------
balls187
This should be a surprise to no one, and is not unique to Facebook.

Gmail has been scanning the email it's servers receive since it's inception.

Initially this was to show ad relevancy. Once your email content became more
valuable than showing ads, Google removed ads.

~~~
stvswn
Google shows ads on Gmail under the Promotions tab. It does not scan emails to
target ads.
[https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603)

~~~
balls187
It does not scan email for ad-targeting _anymore_

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-
ads.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html)

Google has enough data on you that it no longer needs to scan email to show
you relevant ads.

------
colanderman
So does Google with GTalk. In fact links sent via GTalk are modified to
redirect through Google's servers.

------
TaylorGood
At some point Facebook will disgust the majority of their users. Today, as
well, it goes public that not just to Cambridge but all their user database
was "leaked" to advertisers. 2 billion. There is far too great of smart people
at FB to not know. Right now it's being spun publicly to offset
responsibility, but their entire business model is about what happens once the
lights turn off...

------
fwdpropaganda
Hold on. Wasn't Facebook Messenger supposed to be encrypted E2E?

EDIT: Ok, from the responses I get I was confused. Maybe Allo? Skype? I'm sure
someone else other than Signal and WhatsApp were using Signal's protocol. Just
ignore this post.

~~~
marksomnian
Nope. Not unless you explicitly enable Secret Conversations.

------
bistro17
if you are in europe here is a template of an email you can send in post GDPR
world - [https://sixthvariable.com/?p=6](https://sixthvariable.com/?p=6)

------
kingosticks
I don't think you even had to actually send anything. Don't they grab
everything you type, even if you delete it all before clicking enter (when you
calm down quick enough)?

------
monochromatic
I would be shocked if they didn’t.

------
mikroskeem
Yep that's quite old news. They scan messages for offensive content and block
messaging for few days if they find something.. let's say "interesting".

For example, kids at school sending these "dank memes" to eachother and
Facebook slaying bans to them.

------
ggg9990
Speaking from experience, when Facebook didn’t do anything message scanning
with messenger (allowed any person to send any message to anyone else) it was
a tool for massive amounts of extreme personal abuse, blackmail, etc.

------
narven
facebook like any other company with social products, scans anything and
everything, since the beginning till the day they die. thats what social
companies do. they cannot survive without it.

PS: this does not only apply to companies with social products.

------
koko775
Coin sorting machines scan money you put in coin tubes, too.

------
Kuraj
Of course they do.

------
Romanulus
... and why the hell wouldn't they?

------
crb002
HAXL has been known for years.

------
ktta
Obligatory: Use Secret Conversations[1] if you have to use Facebook's
Messenger.

[1]: [https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-
app/1084673321594605...](https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-
app/1084673321594605/)

------
feelin_googley
"You can't watch your kids 24/7," reads one poster, which has a picture of
Schumer, Zuckerberg, and a shirtless Anthony Wiener outside Facebook's New
York offices. "BUT WE CAN."

...

Schumer - who _in 2016 railed that "a person's cellphone should not become a
James Bond-like personal tracking device for a corporation to gather
information"_ \- has stayed relatively silent since Facebook's user data
scandal with Cambridge Analytica broke last month."

Source:

[https://nypost.com/2018/04/03/street-artist-taunts-
schumer-o...](https://nypost.com/2018/04/03/street-artist-taunts-schumer-over-
his-daughters-facebook-job/)

~~~
IIAOPSW
The post reports on generic graffiti now?

Are they that desperate to find their daily DeBlasio/Schumer/Cumo 2 min hate?
Can they not just call random Democrats Communist to satisfy their readership?
Could Sabo possibly find a more tenuous link between Schumer and Facebook?

The fact that Sabo admits to having an unnamed financial backer coupled with
the fact that this non-news is reported on in the Murdoch press makes me think
this is some sort of guerilla marketing by an underhanded conservative firm
similar to Cambridge Analytica.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
>Are they that desperate to find their daily DeBlasio/Schumer/Cumo 2 min hate?

Anyone who lives in New York doesn't need the Post for that.

------
dominotw
duh..

------
teaneedz
Just another reason to avoid Facebook products : Facebook, Messenger,
Instagram, WhatsApp ...

I think E2E encrypted messaging is the only social solution that makes sense
in today's ad tech pervasive tracking world.

~~~
nbvt45
WhatsApp is E2E encrypted

~~~
pmlnr
And also closed source, so no real way of auditing this promise.

~~~
CGamesPlay
Do you trust that the source code for the Signal iOS app on Github is the
source code of the application you're running on your phone? All you really
have to go on is the word of each company.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Do you trust that the source code for the Signal iOS app_

On one hand, we have moxie and a team of people with no evidence against their
integrity. On the other hand, a culture that responds to criticism with
aggression [1] and then responds to criticism of that by deleting their
communications [2].

TL; DR It's reasonable to trust Signal's iOS closed-source app while
distrusting Facebook Messenger's also closed-source secret mode app.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/technology/facebook-
leake...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/technology/facebook-leaked-
memo.html)

[2] [https://fortune.com/2018/03/31/facebook-employees-are-
report...](https://fortune.com/2018/03/31/facebook-employees-are-reportedly-
deleting-controversial-internal-messages/)

