You're conflating the issue of informed consent with access ubiquity.
Simply because the data was gathered in a way not unlike most apps, doesn't make it a non-story. In fact, the lack of informed consent and the very misleading statements to Congress make it a huge story.
User data is a commodity, and is worth far more than money. Considering how easily manipulated large portions of the Facebook community can be (e.g. Facebook mood studies, election-year propaganda, etc.), giving access like this to large tech companies - third parties - absolutely needs to be well regulated and come with the informed consent of it's user base.
Not to mention that the policies around turning this data over to other parties -- namely law enforcement -- is different between most of these companies.
The objection is not non-facebook code accessing facebook data. The objection is that, once again, powerful information is being traded and used as leverage to drive profit, with the intent of the buyer or receiver largely unclear, and the impact yet to be seen.
There is no issue of informed consent here. When you upload data, you consent to your allowed friends being able to view that data in whatever manner they see fit. These device specific interfaces to facebook is just an example of this. FB themselves took reasonable steps to ensure the device manufacturers adhered to the consent that users give when adding data to the site (i.e. only use the data in service to displaying it).
>The objection is that, once again, powerful information is being traded and used as leverage to drive profit
I disagree. I think Facebook, driven by ad dollars, is attempting to secure as many users as it can. Part of that is to make it as seamless and convenient as possible.
Data as currency is a given at this point. Facebook ensures longevity through ease-of-use. Service providers secure further assets, and are in a position to use it.
Informed consent is simply that -- being able to consent without missing a piece of knowledge.
It may cure nothing. But the fact remains that Facebook acted (and continues to act) in bad faith to the user.
Maybe nothing changes, especially now that users are so deeply attached. Real-time targeted advertising has been around since the early 2000s, but explain to the average tech-illiterate user that their phone can hear when a Tide ad is on television and can serve a Clorox ad in their Instagram feed, and watch how uncomfortable they get.
How much of this could be stopped with informed consent.
Simply because the data was gathered in a way not unlike most apps, doesn't make it a non-story. In fact, the lack of informed consent and the very misleading statements to Congress make it a huge story.
User data is a commodity, and is worth far more than money. Considering how easily manipulated large portions of the Facebook community can be (e.g. Facebook mood studies, election-year propaganda, etc.), giving access like this to large tech companies - third parties - absolutely needs to be well regulated and come with the informed consent of it's user base.
Not to mention that the policies around turning this data over to other parties -- namely law enforcement -- is different between most of these companies.
The objection is not non-facebook code accessing facebook data. The objection is that, once again, powerful information is being traded and used as leverage to drive profit, with the intent of the buyer or receiver largely unclear, and the impact yet to be seen.