Facebook allowed phone makers to access users' data: Report
New York, June 4: Raising fresh concerns about Facebook's privacy protection policies, a New York Times report has exposed how the social network allowed about 60 device makers, including Apple and Samsung, to access personal information of users and their friends.
Even before Facebook apps were widely available on smartphones, Facebook had data-sharing partnerships with the device makers, the report said citing company officials, adding that most of the deals remain in effect.
While the device partnerships allowed Facebook to expand its reach, it let the phone makers offer customers popular features of the social network, such as messaging, "like" buttons and address books.
The deals raise concerns about the company's privacy protections and compliance with a 2011 consent decree with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), The Times said.
Facebook, which is already under scrutiny for misuse of millions of its users' data after the Cambridge Analytica data leak scandal became public, reportedly allowed the device companies access to the data of users' friends without their explicit consent.
While Facebook's leaders said that the kind of access exploited by the political consulting firm in 2014 was cut off by the next year as it prohibited developers from collecting information from users' friends.
But the company officials did not disclose that such restrictions were not applicable to makers of cellphones, tablets and other hardware, the report said.
However, Facebook officials denied the device partnerships violated its privacy policies, the FTC agreement and pledges to users.
They said its partnerships were governed by contracts that strictly limited use of the data, including any stored on partners' servers, adding that they knew of no cases where the information had been misused.
"These partnerships work very differently from the way in which app developers use our platform," Ime Archibong, a Facebook vice president was quoted as saying.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Allahabad HC orders probe into 'reinstatement' of teacher in UP's Barabanki
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Friday ordered a probe by the special task force (STF) into alleged irregularities in the rejoining of a teacher at City Intermediate College in Barabanki, observing that the reinstatement appeared to be prima facie illegal.
The court also directed the recovery of the salary paid to the teacher during the disputed period.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order on a petition filed by the college management committee. The court expressed doubts over the roles of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Barabanki, the college principal and the teacher concerned and hence, directed a detailed inquiry into the matter.
Taking note of alleged manipulation of records and misleading submissions, the court ordered the immediate transfer of the Barabanki DIOS to ensure a fair probe. It also directed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the then joint director of education of the Ayodhya division.
In its order, the court found that the teacher, Abhay Kumar, was initially appointed as an assistant teacher in 2018 but joined an Eklavya Model Residential School in Chhattisgarh as a lecturer in June 2024 without obtaining permission from the management. His subsequent request to retain the lien was rejected.
Despite this, he was allowed to rejoin the Barabanki College in September 2025 on the directions of the joint director of education and the DIOS, and was even paid the salary for October 2025. The court termed the rejoining "wholly illegal" and lacking any legal basis.
The bench also expressed concern over lapses in communication within the education department and directed the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to ensure that official orders are communicated through email and WhatsApp as well, to prevent disputes.
The matter is next listed for hearing on May 28 when a compliance report is sought.
