Skip to main content

Facebook Accused of Reading Text Messages via App

A report from the London Sunday Times (paywall) claims that the Facebook mobile app for Android and iOS is accessing personal text messages residing on smartphones. The social website reportedly isn't denying its actions, saying that the data collection is part of a trial to launch its own messaging service. Even more, when the service actually goes live, users will be prompted to give permission.

"The permission is clearly disclosed on the app page in the Android marketplace and is in anticipation of new features that enable users to integrate Facebook features with their texts," a spokesman for Facebook said in a statement. "However, other than some very limited testing, we haven't launched anything yet so we're not using the permission."

The overall theme of the article reveals that companies like Facebook and Yahoo are accessing personal information -- including text messages and contact lists -- and intercepting phone calls without the user's knowledge. YouTube can reportedly remotely access and operate the users' smartphone camera to take pictures or videos at any given time. Even more, merely downloading basic apps can leave consumers vulnerable to a plethora of spam and invasive advertising.

But this is mostly nothing new. The problem, according to the paper, is that these features are clearly labeled in the terms and conditions -- something 70-percent of smartphone and tablet users rarely or don't even read because they're overly complicated and lengthy. Most of us generally give the app the green light when its flashes a list of permissions before installing without even reading what it will actually access.

As for Facebook's app, the permissions clearly state that it will read SMS or MMS messages, saying that permission "allows application to read SMS messages stored on your device or SIM card. Malicious applications may read your confidential messages." The app will also write to SMS messages stored on the device or SIM card, and receive and process SMS messages. Other permissions include reading contact data, writing contact data, determine the phone number and serial number of the phone, access the GPS and more.

Despite the listed permissions, Facebook told ZDNet that the Sunday Times paper was wrong, that there's no actual reading of user text messages. "Facebook said that lots of communications apps use these permissions, and the application technically has the capability to integrate with the phone’s SMS system, but added that it is for testing purposes," the report states.

According to a list of app permissions, Flickr has access to location data, text messages, contacts, who the user is calling, and the camera. Both Angry Birds and Shazam have access to location data and who the user is calling, whereas Netflix only keeps tabs on the user's internet history.

Out of fourteen listed apps, Netflix and Ancestry are the only two that don't keep tabs on who the user is calling, and only four don't collect location data. Four apps have direct access to the camera including dating site Badoo, Ancestry and My Fitness Pal. My Remote Lock will actually intercept a phone call.

  • the_krasno
    Oh come on! People who care about their privacy will have to lock themselves out of the internet at this rate!
    Reply
  • GenericUser
    Just another "we're not REALLY doing what it looks like, we just have those features in there for no good reason on accident" case. "Testing" purposes? If you don't have plans to explicitly use those services on the phone, don't request those permissions.
    Reply
  • Crush3d
    Companies want to see how far they can go before users have had enough and take a stand.

    Good thing the government is looking out for the people and protecting their privacy and best interest. Not.

    Reply
  • fancarolina
    Some explain to me why Android and iOS don't give users a choice about permissions. Simply telling me what the application wants isn't enough. I should have a choice if I want to allow each item or not. If the app doesn't run right for my permission choices then I will know it. Then I can choose what to enable to make it work or not depending on what I want to allow.
    Reply
  • fancarolina
    FancarolinaSome explain to me why Android and iOS don't give users a choice about permissions. Simply telling me what the application wants isn't enough. I should have a choice if I want to allow each item or not. If the app doesn't run right for my permission choices then I will know it. Then I can choose what to enable to make it work or not depending on what I want to allow.
    Someone.

    Furthermore why is there still no edit function on this site!
    Reply
  • jaber2
    My wife typed "wedding" on msg, she got bombarded with wedding adds for few days, if only she did a search on google, she would have noticed same when ever she visited any site with adds.
    Reply
  • the real mr b
    The simple equation : More_Spying = More_Revenues clearly demonstrates that it will only get worse.
    Reply
  • warezme
    I'm not a technophobe but I have no apps on my phone that didn't come with the device and most of those I have disabled or removed. I have no Twitter or Facebook account and don't care to have one. Even though I am an IT pro and maybe because of it, work in the business, know what it is about and I am really into some very high end stuff most people don't even know exist. People that understand the business don't use most of the social stuff out there and if they do, they do it on PC's that are armored against attacks behind firewalls and filtering systems. If you are going to be nonchalant and flippant about what you install and use on the internet and your phone, be prepared for the consequences and don't bother to complain about it.
    Reply
  • A Bad Day
    "Sir, the vast majority of our customers have around 8th grade reading level."

    "Good. Give them lawyer-grade reading level material. If they don't understand, they'll accept it."
    Reply
  • It should be illegal for a company to bury terms behind a bunch of legal jargon designed to protect themselves. Furthermore it should be illegal for them to set a fixed window size for the display of said terms. Many EULA's are 15+ pages long, sitting inside a tiny windows displaying no more than 4 lines of text which is non-resizeable. On top of that, they print 5+ paragraph in a row in all caps making it impossible to read. They are clearly purposely making it difficult to read. All of the statutes an EULA grants should be spelled out plainly above, and then all of the legal technicalities can be listed below. Right now they just randomly throw it all in there together.
    Reply