Conceived in the 1980s and born in the 1990s, I am a child born into a world where technology develops faster than a child in the womb. As are a great many of the people I know, who are up to a few years older than me. The technology that we take for granted is simply astounding. Desktop computers that aren't big and bulky and take up a full room. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, games consoles that don't give you obvious pixels. I could go on, but you get the idea. Even non-smartphones, but tring to find a person my age without one somewhat resembles a wild goose chase. A mobile that more resembles a 3310 is something you would associate more with the pensioner who might never be able to use anything more complicated.
With all this, I would like to be believe that more of these people have a bit of common sense about them when it comes to the applications that we download onto these smartphones, or to a computer that runs the latest Windows and Apple Operating Systems. But it appears that this has not been the case and it makes me want to bash my head off a wall and scream in rage at how...ridiculous some people can be.
Recently, Facebook made their messenger app for Facebook compulsory for users to read their messages. This in itself, I'll admit, is annoying, There was nothing wrong with the in-app access to messages. There are plenty of people who agree with me, I remember seeing the posts on Facebook. But it didn't stop at people's overall annoyance at the changeover. It got silly. So, if you would look below, here are a couple of reasons that people have been freaking out over Facebook Messenger:
- It requires access to photographs
- It has access to your phone numbers
- It requires access to your microphone
- It violates your privacy
- It can send messages without your consent
- Read call logs without consent
- Can take photographs and videos without consent
- Charges for calls and text messages
I'll be honest, I read this list and I want to laugh. I want to laugh until I'm blue in the face and unable to breathe from the sheer hysteria that the Internet has caused yet again without due cause.
What I'm going to do is dispel these myths by using this thing that the Internet and modern technology as a whole has dispelled from the minds of many people; common sense. I'll also be using basic privacy laws such as the Data Protection Act 1998.
The first thing I'm going to dispel is photographs and videos. I'd say it makes my head itch, but it applies to all of them so there isn't much point. Supposedly, Facebook Messenger is a bad thing because it needs access to your camera, videos and photographs, and with this access, can take these things without your consent, presumably in some sort of Big Brother fashion that's probably going to get sent off to Facebook HQ to tell Zuckerberg and his cronies what we're getting up to.
Do you get just how....daft that sounds? And if you don't, you're probably part of the problem. Or you believe absolutely everythig your read on the Internet. And it maks my head hurt. It makes the heads of others hurt too.
^This is me on my 24th birthday, after being attacked with cold water by my Guides.
This is a printscreen of my computer, time is BST.
This is a conversation on WhatsApp with my Brazilian friend, Rod.
This what comes up when you open the "photo" button on Facebook's mobile app.
What's the difference between these and Facebook Messenger? The answer is none. My computer, from which I uploaded all of these (eventually), requires access to my photographs in order to upload them to this blog and to anything else I choose to upload them to, like Facebook. These apps on social media; Facebook, Kik, WhatsApp, Skype, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and so many more all require access to your photographs to send them to the person you want to send them to. So why is it that it's okay for these apps to have access to your photos and videos, but not these other ones? How do you know that these other apps aren't doing the exact same thing you're accusing Facebook Messenger of? Because you trust them more? Why would you trust one more than the other? They all do the same thing, and Facebook and WhatsApp are owned by the same company. So I guess I'm just really accused as to why one app would be paying Big Brother when the others don't or wouldn't.
These apps need access to your photographs so that it knows where to send the picture. Not because it wants to have CCTV all over you to know what you get up to and what's important in your life. Then again, Facebook and Instagram already give you an idea of what everyone and their mother is interested in. If you looked on mine, you would find gay rights, the odd Scottish Referendum thing, pictures of my child and general ranting and raving about a whole load of things that make me happy or annoy me. Funnily enough, this was going to be a Facebook status. If you look on the pages of someone you might not know, you can learn plenty about them simply by what photographs they upload. But you're okay with letting the world see your photographs for anyone who cares to see, but not to send a picture privately because someone managed to scaremonger you out of it.
Data Protection prohibits social media's ability to do anything without your consent, and these companies make far too much money to run the risk of losing it and their livelihoods. What Facebook Messenger is, is nothing more than a standard social media application. It requires access to photos, videos, your camera and your microphone to to function properly.
Let's take Skype as an example. We all know what Skype is, right? It's that IM service that allows you to call people all over the world, free of charge, so long as you both are registered with them. How would Skype operate if it had no access t a microphone? Exactly, it wouldn't. You can't have a phone call without some kind of receiver, which is what the microphone on Skype is. If there's no receiver, there's no conversation.
The same applies with Facebook messenger. How does one send an audio message without being able to access a microphone? And how does this necessity somehow then equate to yet more breaking of the Data Protection Act? Maybe I'm weird, but I can't see that connection.
(Side note: as typing this, an advert for Malteasers Teasers came on the television. Which features a Skype call. I was amused by this)
In either case, it completely and utterly baffles me how people are saying that one social application as different attributes for what it can and cannot do when Facebook controls a rather hefty portion of the social media market. For example, Facebook itself is the second biggest social media platform in the world, second only to Google +.
TANGENT WARNING!
Speaking of Google, if I had to choose between the guys who run Google and Mark Zuckerberg to be scared of playing Big Brother, I'd pick Google, simply based of how much of your personal data they have on you, an what you store there. Google contains but is not exclusive to:
These apps need access to your photographs so that it knows where to send the picture. Not because it wants to have CCTV all over you to know what you get up to and what's important in your life. Then again, Facebook and Instagram already give you an idea of what everyone and their mother is interested in. If you looked on mine, you would find gay rights, the odd Scottish Referendum thing, pictures of my child and general ranting and raving about a whole load of things that make me happy or annoy me. Funnily enough, this was going to be a Facebook status. If you look on the pages of someone you might not know, you can learn plenty about them simply by what photographs they upload. But you're okay with letting the world see your photographs for anyone who cares to see, but not to send a picture privately because someone managed to scaremonger you out of it.
Data Protection prohibits social media's ability to do anything without your consent, and these companies make far too much money to run the risk of losing it and their livelihoods. What Facebook Messenger is, is nothing more than a standard social media application. It requires access to photos, videos, your camera and your microphone to to function properly.
Let's take Skype as an example. We all know what Skype is, right? It's that IM service that allows you to call people all over the world, free of charge, so long as you both are registered with them. How would Skype operate if it had no access t a microphone? Exactly, it wouldn't. You can't have a phone call without some kind of receiver, which is what the microphone on Skype is. If there's no receiver, there's no conversation.
The same applies with Facebook messenger. How does one send an audio message without being able to access a microphone? And how does this necessity somehow then equate to yet more breaking of the Data Protection Act? Maybe I'm weird, but I can't see that connection.
(Side note: as typing this, an advert for Malteasers Teasers came on the television. Which features a Skype call. I was amused by this)
In either case, it completely and utterly baffles me how people are saying that one social application as different attributes for what it can and cannot do when Facebook controls a rather hefty portion of the social media market. For example, Facebook itself is the second biggest social media platform in the world, second only to Google +.
TANGENT WARNING!
Speaking of Google, if I had to choose between the guys who run Google and Mark Zuckerberg to be scared of playing Big Brother, I'd pick Google, simply based of how much of your personal data they have on you, an what you store there. Google contains but is not exclusive to:
- A blogging site (the one I'm using right now)
- An email service
- A social network
- A cloud service called Google Docs/Drive
- A map service
You get the drift. And Google does not violate Data Protection. This is despite you putting a lot of what is widely regarded as sensitive information, such as your phone number, into your Google account, which you need in order to access emails, the social network and Docs. Yet you're trying to tell me I should be concerned for my safety over this piddly messenger application?
BACK TO NORMAL!
The whole argument of Big Brother is stupid. I'm sorry, but it is. If you're going to freak out because one application supposedly can access your photographs and videos, then you'd be as well to delete your entire social media from your phone and computer. They all do the same things. There is no difference, and the fact Facebook has had to actually come out and speak out about whether or not Messenger is any different to any other social application? My head hurts thinking about it.
I suppose I covered the microphone bit with the photographs, so I won't beat that dead horse any longer. But that doesn't answer all the "questions and fears" people have in their heads for no reason whatsoever.
There are no privacy violations in the Facebook Messenger Application.
I cannot stress this enough. When people say that these things violate your privacy, you're proving why I believe that the three computer laws should be a compulsory piece of high school education. The Data Protection Act (1998), Computer Misuse Act (1990) and Freedom of Information Act (2000). Okay, the last two apply less in this capacity, but still. These laws are important in so many areas of life and should be taught to all teenagers.
The Data Protection Act means that only certain figures can access your information without prior consent. This generally is restricted only to law enforcement and prospective employers when doing a background check on you. Anything that gets out there, goes out with your consent. That spam email you got? You'll have not opted out of selected third party emails. That's not the fault of Mecca Bingo or whatever else you use in your spare time. It's your own doing for not declaring you didn't want those emails in the first place. And if you did opt out, then you probably know someone who just wants to keep their targets up. It's almost impossible from a legal standpoint to actually give out someone's email address and phone number without consent. That friend with your phone number isn't actually breaking the law when using information they have to hand, which just so happens to be your phone number.
And what privacy is violated, exactly? All these apps are designed to do is show you a conversation with a friend or a creep, and access things that you allow it to access. It isn't doing anything it shouldn't. When I was in high school, my computing studies teacher once told us the best way to describe a computer is a "smart idiot". It knows how to do all these things, but it won't do it without first being guided into it. It can't type out a text message to your mother to tell her you'll be there in fifteen minutes without you actually typing it into the message box. It can't even get into the text messages without you showing it where to go. So how does something that can't do the simplest of things without you telling it to, steal your privacy without your knowledge? It doesn't make any sense.
And the smart idiot analogy applies to sending messages without your consent. I really, genuinely, don't get this. It's the same logic as above. Your smartphone is a miniature computer. So how would it send a message without your knowledge? It can't. The only way that it could is if your smartphone gets a virus, and that is entirely possible. But without that, it can't send those messages that you're claiming it can't.
The thing that really baffles me isit can read your call logs. If someone wants to explain how that's the case, then go ahead. I don't see it, and as such I am unable to tell you how it's impossible, other than the fact your call logs are not related in any way, shape or form to your messenger service. Yes, Facebook syncs your contacts to your phone book, but that doesn't allow it to see that your called your partner at 11.45am on the 15th of August. The idea is ludicrous, and I can only imagine that it was spawned by someone who really, really doesn't want you to use this application, and as such, any social media platform. After all, if one can do it, why can't all of them? Are you suddenly going to stop using WhatsApp, which requires phone numbers in order to send messages? It can't access your logs either.
The only thing I'm not going to argue is it charging for calls and text messages. It does. But the thing is, I don't understand why you would do that to begin with. If you're using Facebook Messenger, why would you then want to send texts to that person? The logic baffles me, but that comes through Facebook and not the user themselves. And you can call that person? Right, fine, but why don't you just put that person's phone number in your phone book and call them from there? Would that not make a little bit more sense? Or am I just a little old for my age, and can't see the logic in that at all?
I went back up to my first set of bullet points to see if there was anything that I missed. And looking through the list, I can't help but shake my head as much as I just did at the guy on the tv show I'm half-watching as I write this. It honestly baffles me how people will believe everything they read on the Internet without doing a bit of research on it before jumping to conclusions that this supposedly bad thing is as bad, evil or whatever other adjective with negative connotations that they want to throw at it. Now don't get me wrong, I have been guilty of jumping to conclusions in the past. I'm not a saint that way. But 99 times out of 100, I will have done my homework. And this situation requires little homework. All it requires is a little bit of sense with computer knowledge and the laws of computing which apply to social media. And maybe the picture below!
Okay, less the picture beside it bit in this case, but it doesn't change the point. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln said this when the Internet didn't exist until over 100 years later? It's this meme that proves my point, and I am a massive, massive fan of it for that reason.
I'm not saying you should use Facebook Messenger. I dislike the app, but not for reasons above, and those reasons are my own that I am not in a position to share them with you. But what I am going to tell you is that you should not refuse to use it for its supposedly illegal activities that, with a bit of thinking, it doesn't actually do. There isn't anything to say that the charging for phone calls and text messaging is illegal, however. At least to my knowledge. As far as I'm aware, they're well within their rights to do that as many gaming apps are allowed to charge you for things to help you with the game.
I;d say these are my two cents, aimed at helping to alleviate some of the tension that runs with this application, while showing that it is no different from a host of other apps that you can download, and any other social media in existence. It doesn't do anything you don't tell it, there is no Big Brother conspiracy surrounding it, and, really, the whole thing is just silly, and likely concocted by someone who hates Facebook.
Anyway, I'm finished here. And this is the first time in a long time I've actually finished a post. Thank you for reading, and if anything I have said is offensive, I can only apologise for that. Please, people who have read this, take the time to do a bit of homework before jumping to conclusions.
Thank you once again for reading, and I'll catch ya later.
