Monday, June 24, 2013

Hacker Scrapes Thousands Of Public Phone Numbers Using Facebook Graph Search

The link to the full story is here


A hacker has exploited Facebook’s Graph Search to collect a database of thousands of phone numbers and Facebook users. Both parties agree that all the information was left public by users (even if the users themselves may still not realize it). But Facebook issued him a cease and desist after the hacker continued to scrape data and argued with Facebook that the availability of the information invades users’ privacy.
Brandon Copley, a mobile developer in Dallas, Texas, searched and downloaded 2.5 million entries of phone numbers from the social network. He says many of these entries are empty, as they either aren’t active numbers or aren’t connected to a Facebook user with public settings; however, he notes that thousands of entries do match a phone number with the name of a Facebook user.
A Facebook representative tells me that this is a feature of graph search and that these users have their contact information set to “public.”
“Your privacy settings govern who can find you with search using the contact info you have provided, such as your email address and phone number,” the Facebook representative says. “You can modify these settings at any time from the Privacy Settings page.”
Copley confirms that these users have their contact information set to public, but argues that this is still a security issue.
“Facebook is denying its users the right to privacy by allowing our phone numbers to be publicly searchable as the default setting,” Copley tells me. “This means that anyone with my number knows my Facebook contact information.  I may have not told my future employer about my Facebook account, but if I called them on my cell phone they can now know how to find me on Facebook.”
Facebook admitted to a major security flaw regarding the Download Your Information tool on Friday afternoon that displayed the email and phone numbers of 6 million users; while similar in nature, Facebook says that flaw is unrelated to Copley’s hack, which they say is not a security flaw.
On March 5, Copley reported a tip to Facebook security, writing, “There is a security invulnerability that allows someone to essentially create a database of phone numbers and Facebook users.”
“Personally, I used this to catch a criminal–someone was selling stolen goods on Craigslist, and I had their number, and used this to find who that person was on Facebook and from there reported them to the police,” he continued in the March 5 email.
A member of Facebook’s security team wrote back, in an email Copley shared with us, “I agree with you personally. We do have anti­scraping protections (rate­limiting, bad ip blocks, etc) but it comes down to people controlling their privacy, we can make the privacy tools available and we can encourage them to use them but we could never just switch their privacy settings for them. So there is not much more we can do”
Copley says Facebook told him the supposed security flaw was a feature of Graph Search.
“I then went on to gather the <2.5 million entry database at this point to show them how a ‘feature’ like this is a security flaw,” he tells me.
Copley says he used his access tokens from his developer account and the Facebook Search API to perform thousands of searches per day for phone numbers; when he began hitting up against the rate limit of his developer account, he found a way to use the API token of an app that isn’t rate-limited and performed millions of searches.
In March and early April, Copley’s Facebook account was banned several times.
“I have no idea why you are getting banned or what is going on. I don’t think there is any reason it would be happening because of the research you were doing here though,” the same member of Facebook’s security team wrote to Copley in early April.
On April 26, Facebook’s lawyers sent Copley a cease-and-desist letter, stating, “you are unlawfully acquiring Facebook user data. It appears that you are accessing Facebook through automated means and stealing Facebook access tokens in order to scrape data from Facebook’s site without permission.”
Facebook’s lawyers demanded that Copley send them: “1. Copies of all scripts or methods that you use or have used to scrape Facebook user data, along with a brief description of how each method works; 2. All information regarding the individuals that you shared or discussed Facebook token jacking scripts with, including any identifying information such as name, email address, forum screen names; 3. A complete description of what you shared with the individuals listed in No. 3; 4. Access to all Facebook user data that you scraped from the Facebook site; and 5. The names of individuals that you disclosed any portion of the scraped Facebook data to.”
Copley says that Facebook lawyers mentioned Andrew Auernheimer’s case in conversations with him.
In 2010, Auernheimer discovered a security flaw in AT&T’s iPad user database, which let him reveal contact information for 114,000 iPad 3G users. Auernheimer showed this to a writer at Gawker Media; he is now serving a 41-month jail sentence.
The obvious difference between these two instances is that Auernheimer revealed that information that was supposed to be private but was publicly accessible; the information that Copley scraped is all set to public.
Copley also says he has also been looking at other ways to search Facebook for phone numbers and now believes he has found an even faster way to connect Facebook users and phone numbers than through the search API.
Facebook wants to have it both ways. It creates interfaces that often encourage users to share more data publicly, which lets them do things like search for each other using only a phone number. But it also wants to retain a sense of privacy — and control over users — so it fights anyone else who tries to access the data it helps make public.
At this point, it is unclear if Facebook will pursue litigation against Copley. He appears to be determined to press Facebook on this privacy issue and show the world how widely accessible users’ public contact information is.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Source: Instagram Will Get Video On June 20

The link to the full story is here



We’ve been working on getting more details on a press event that Facebook is having this week. Earlier, we wrote it could launch a news-reading app, but we have since heard more details that point to something else entirely. On June 20, a source says Facebook will unveil that Instagram, its popular photo-sharing app, will begin to let people also take and share short videos. Call it the Vine effect.
We are still looking for more information because we understand that Facebook has not wanted the details of June 20 to leak out — so this could be an intentional blind alley. But if the Instagram video report is true, you could say the event invite itself — sent by snail mail, coffee cup stain charmingly in one corner — is a red herring of its own.
Earlier reports about Instagram getting video provide some indication, though, that this is not coming out of the blue. Most recently, about three weeks ago Matthew Keys broke a story noting that such a service was getting tested internally. At the time, there wasn’t any information on when it would be coming out, nor whether there would be filters, nor whether this would be in a separate app or part of an Instagram update. The videos would be between five and 10 seconds in length, he noted.
Getting video on Instagram is a move that would make sense. Specifically, it looks like a direct response to the rising popularity of video-sharing services, namely Twitter’s Vine. It, and others like Viddy, Cinemagram and Socialcam, sometimes get described as “Instragram for video” apps.
The Vine app — which lets users take six seconds of video footage on an iOS or Android handset and then share those clips to Vine’s own network, Twitter or Facebook — has shot up in popularity since going live in January. After Twitter debuted an Android version of Vine in the beginning of June, usage reached a tipping point: shares of Vines surpassed those of Instagram photos on Twitter — usage that has only diverged even more since then:
instagram versus vine
Of course, you could argue that part of the reason is because Twitter no longer shows inline views of Instagram photos — that may have affected how many Instagram photos have been shared to Twitter.
When those Instagram/Twitter cards disappeared, we noted that part of the reason for the move — taken by Facebook/Instagram, not Twitter — appeared to be to drive more direct traffic to Instagram itself, a popular social network in its own right, with over 100 million monthly active users, rising sharply since Facebook bought the company last year for $715 million.
Putting in a video service could serve to further that strategy even more, before new-but-already-popular services like Vine get more of a foothold. It will mean one less app and social network for users to build up, and, for those who like to take and share videos, another reason to visit Instagram. You can see how something like video could be a very sticky complement to its photo service.
There could be another reason for adding video to the service: it’s a very attractive medium for advertisers and marketers.
Of course, Instagram is not running any ads yet — in fact, Facebook and Instagram got a lot of heatover changes in their terms of service in December over how it could implement advertising services in the future — so much heat that they rolled back the ToS and apologized. And in Facebook’slast quarterly earnings call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a point of noting that while big brands were interested in advertising on Instagram, for now there were no plans to implement this. (That’s not to say that Instagram is not already a substantial marketing platform for brands.)
And with 100 million+ users, you could argue that there may not be enough scale there yet to really monetize ads properly. Adding in video is laying the groundwork — and providing one more engine to grow that Instagrammer base.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Twitter Redesigns #Music To Further Highlight Charts, Offering A Hint Of What’s To Come Site-Wide

The link to the full story is here


As we noted a few weeks ago, Twitter introduced charts for its #Music product. The company’s intentions for the service aren’t known, and it seems like they’re taking somewhat of a public beta approach with it. Having said that, before the service launched, I noted that it could be the next “Top 40″ phenomenon.
To compile meaningful charts, a huge chunk of data is needed to make them meaningful. It goes without saying that Twitter has more data than it knows what to do with, and #Music is a public showcase of what it’s capable of doing. I don’t think of Twitter as a “media” company, but rather a meaningful social data company. If you think about the impact that charts make on every vertical that has data to create one, it’s a huge business opportunity for Twitter.
Charts drive usage, conversation, publication mentions, sales and, most importantly, trends. Yes, Twitter has had a trending topics section of the website for as long as I can remember, but the results aren’t focused and don’t give the proper context to make the phrases that appear actionable…or all that interesting. Take a look:
Screenshot_6_3_13_10_56_AM
Without context or proper relevance, trending topics are nothing more than a snapshot for people who spend fewer than 10 minutes on Twitter a day. The brand-new layout for #Music is a sign of what’s to come for all trending information on the platform.
Screenshot_6_3_13_10_29_AM
Not only is this a more attractive design, but it gives you all of the context you need to engage with the content. If you apply this approach to video games, movies, television shows or anything else you can think of, then Twitter’s massive pool of data finally starts to make sense for users. Not only does it make sense, but it’s the formation of a solid platform for advertising. While buying your way to the top of a chart probably won’t happen, snapping ads to portions of pages like this will convert better than banner ads.
You can imagine a world where Twitter could serve up charts on apps, video games, publications, TV shows, movies, sports teams, or anything that’s currently tweeted about, but unstructured on the site. The advertising opportunities for brands will be there, the usability improvements for users will be there and the marriage of the two will make for a better public offering come 2014.
#Music is just the logical testing ground.

The Twitter #Music Website Fills Out Its Artist Profiles With Tweeted Tracks And Similar Artists

The link to the full story is here


It looks like Twitter #Music has gotten a couple of improvements on the web — specifically to its individual artist profiles.
Previously, the artist page just pointed to the other artists that they were following. So the profile page for Fun., for example, pointed to the other musicians followed by Fun. on Twitter. (Clearly I’m writing this post to include as much #random punctuation. as possible.) Now it also includes a list of Fun.’s most tweeted tracks and links to artists who are similar.
These aren’t huge changes, but they do make the profile page more useful, both for discovering music by a given artist (if you click on a “most tweeted” track in a profile, an iTunes preview of the song will start playing) and for finding other artists you might like. I’m guessing that the various charts of trending music are still going to be the site’s main discovery mechanism, but now, at least, when you go from a chart to an artist page, it’s a little more interesting.
It looks like the changes are only live on the website currently, not on the mobile app. A Twitter spokesperson confirmed that the new features are live on the web for everyone, but she declined to say if and when they would be added to the app. (This suggests that we may want to keep an eye on the website for new Twitter #Music features before they hit mobile.)
By the way, Twitter #Music was in the news earlier this week because it’s going to have its own station within Apple’s just-announced iTunes Radio service.

Facebook To Simplify Ad-Buying Process By Eliminating Half Of Its 27 Ad Units

The link to the full story is here


Facebook is wrapping up a press session at its Menlo Park headquarters where it talked about the progress that it’s making with advertisers and announced it will be eliminating and consolidating a number of ad units.
The big vision, according to Product Manager Fidji Simo, is to simplify the general process of running ads on Facebook. She said that when Facebook looked at its 27 different ad products, it found that “every single product is really good on its own,” but “the whole is less than the sum of its parts.” The process is too complicated right now, she said (which could potentially scare businesses away or mean that they run less effective campaigns). Ultimately, advertisers should just tell Facebook “who you are, what your message is, and what your objective is,” then they should be able to run the kind of campaign that works for them without any “guesswork.”
Somewhat confusingly, given that vision, it sounds like Facebook actually isn’t announcing changes to the ad-buying workflow. When one of the reporters asked about this, Facebook’s Andrew Bosworth said that the bidding process isn’t changing at all. Simo said the announced changes fall into three different categories — streamlining the number of ad formats, “really bringing the best of Sponsored Stories to all ads,” and increasing the consistency in how ads are displayed. Basically, it sounds like Facebook is eliminating and consolidating of a number of different ad products. Simo argued that this gets Facebook closer to its vision “by reducing the possibility of choosing the wrong thing.”
For example, Facebook is eliminating the Questions product and instead adding the ability to ask Questions within a regular Page Post. It’s also eliminating the product for online offers, because advertisers are just promote a link that points users to an offers on their website. (It’s keeping the product to promote in-store offers.) And it’s also eliminating Sponsored Story units and instead integrating Sponsored Story into a number of other ad units — instead of allowing advertisers to buy a Sponsored Story, Facebook will automatically add “social context” to an ad whenever such context exists. (You can see an example of an ad with social context below.)
facebook sponsored story
Most of these changes won’t happen until the third or fourth quarter of this year, Simo said, although some of them may come sooner.
There are more details in a just-published Facebook blog post. The company says, “In the next six months, we plan to streamline the number of ad units from 27 to fewer than half of that while mapping all of our ads to the business objectives marketers care about — be it in-store sales, online conversions, app installs, etc.”

Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program

The link to the full story is here


The Washington Post today reported that Google, Apple, Facebook, Dropbox, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL (TechCrunch’s parent company) and Yahoo participated in the so-called PRISM program which provided the NSA with what looks like virtually direct access to their servers and their users’ data.
We have now reached out to all of these companies and all of them have categorically denied that they are participating.
These denials are especially odd given that a number of publications, including USA Today, are now citing source that confirm the existence of this program. According to these reports, PRISM is not aimed at U.S. citizens or any person in the United States.
Here is what we got so far:
Facebook
“We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”
Google
“Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.”
Apple
Apple gave this the statement to AllThingsD:
“We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”
Microsoft
“We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
Yahoo
“Yahoo! takes users’ privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.”
Dropbox
“We’ve seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any such program and remain committed to protecting our users’ privacy.”
Paltalk
“We have not heard of PRISM. Paltalk exercises extreme care to protect and secure users’ data, only responding to court orders as required to by law. Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers.”
AOL
“We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program. We do not disclose user information to government agencies without a court order, subpoena or formal legal process, nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers.”

Following Google’s Lead, Zuckerberg Says Facebook Isn’t Giving Govt “Direct Access” Either

The link to the full story is here


Mark Zuckerberg has just taken to Facebook topersonally respond to the accusations that Facebook is involved in PRISM, an alleged secret government program that gives the government access to user information, denying that Facebook has ever given any government “direct access” to its servers.
This comes just hours after Google responded to the unfolding events regardingPRISM, which reportedly allows the NSA and FBI access to the servers and user information of multiple major US tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple.
Zuck’s response isn’t that different from Larry Page’s:
I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM:
Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn’t even heard of PRISM before yesterday.
When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.
We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It’s the only way to protect everyone’s civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term.
The post has over 56,000 likes at the time of writing.
It’s worth noting that the wording in Page’s statement and Zuckerberg’s statement is very similar. Just check out the Doc in this tweet from Alex Madrigal:

All of the companies accused of participating in the program have denied their participation, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Dropbox, PalTalk, and Aol. Five out of eight of those companies denied giving “direct access” to servers to any government agencies. At least half of them have said “they never heard of PRISM”. Page and Zuckerberg both said verbatim that they hadn’t heard of PRISM “until yesterday”.
The seeming coordination here is just one floating and possible theory. The other is that the domino effect was necessary. Once one company denies participation (regardless of the truth, which we clearly are very unsure of right now), the rest must follow suit.
Screen Shot 2013-06-07 at 6.09.06 PM