| |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Meta’s New Muse AI Agent Read My Private Messages. I Never Asked It To https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/metas-new-muse-ai-agent-read-... | | |
| ▲ | lapcat 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Literally nobody has reproduced this. The Messages database is protected by macOS TCC. If Aten were correct, there would exist a macOS zero day vulnerability. The vastly more likely explanation is that Aten mindlessly gave Full Disk Access to Muse. And that appears to be Apple's assumption, based on Apple's newly published developer note. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Apple's statement on the matter sure sounds like Meta has once again been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. > Some developers are using Full Disk Access in ways that could put users at risk, exposing everything on their systems—including files, mail, messages, and even browsing history—without users’ full knowledge and understanding. For communication apps, this can also compromise the privacy of the people users are communicating with. | | |
| ▲ | lapcat 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Apple's statement on the matter sure sounds like Meta has once again been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. > > Some developers are using Full Disk Access in ways that could put users at risk In other words, Muse did have Full Disk Access. Jason Aten did grant Full Disk Access to Muse, despite his claims otherwise. If Aten did not grant Full Disk Access to Muse, then why would Apple even be talking about Full Disk Access? The point is that Aten apparently granted Full Disk Access absent-mindedly, so absent-mindedly that he won't even admit that he did it. This is why Apple is making changes to Full Disk Access to make it more obvious what's happening. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In other words, Muse did have Full Disk Access. Jason Aten did grant Full Disk Access to Muse, despite his claims otherwise. Perhaps you should do some reading on the matter? > Meta CTO David Singleton joined the fray with a rebuttal that appeared solid. For Muse to access Apple Messages, a user must manually give it two privileges. One is full-disk access, a macOS system-level permission. The other is to enable a Messages connector setting in Muse. “The Messages integration in the Muse Mac app is opt in,” Singleton said. “Your Muse can only read Messages content if macOS system-level Full Disk Access is granted and the Messages connector is enabled.” Singleton’s implication was clear. Muse could have read Aten’s Messages communications only if he had enabled both settings, and if so, the columnist had only himself—and certainly not Meta—to blame. https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/10/apple-changes-full-... Meta has a long history of not respecting boundaries once something is technically possible. | | |
| ▲ | b112 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you're saying he mindlessly, and without thinking about it granted two OS level permissions to Muse? I don't understand how this refutes anything the parent poster said. | |
| ▲ | lapcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Perhaps you should do some reading on the matter? Perhaps you should: https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2026/10/2.html > Singleton’s implication was clear. Muse could have read Aten’s Messages communications only if he had enabled both settings, and if so, the columnist had only himself—and certainly not Meta—to blame. Indeed, and it looks like Aten absent-mindedly did all of this! > Meta has a long history of not respecting boundaries once something is technically possible. It's not technically possible for Muse to read the Messages db without Full Disk Access. Aten denies having given FDA to Muse. Thus, Aten is simply wrong, misremembering or something. And if he misremembers about FDA, he likely also misremembers about granting app-level permissions to Muse. Again, literally nobody has reproduced Aten's experience. Show me one other person. In fairness, Aten behaved just like many other users would, mindlessly granting permissions that an app requests. That's certainly a problem. Unfortunately, Aten stubbornly refuses to admit this, instead confusing the problem by suggesting technical impossibilities. Aten doesn't want to take any responsibility for his own actions. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Indeed, and it looks like Aten absent-mindedly did all of this! Since Aten has clearly said he did not grant Muse the permission to read his messages (inside Muse), I'm not accepting your version of the events. | | |
| ▲ | lapcat 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you prefer to accept the version of events where Aten somehow stumbled upon a macOS security vulnerability that allows apps without Full Disk Access to read the Messages database, a vulnerability that nobody else has reproduced and that Apple itself apparently doesn't recognize? Just because one writer said so? | | |
| ▲ | cloudfudge 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If what the writer said was strictly true, Apple would be having a little security freakout about how Muse managed to bypass this OS control. My assumption is that the writer did not understand everything he was granting it permission to do, so he legitimately believes that he didn't grant it those permissions. But he did. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Apple's statement is that the permission is being abused to do things that users do not think are possible. In this case, Meta explicitly promises that Muse will not read your messages even after you grant it disk permissions. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | givinguflac 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Lmfao you tell someone to read and then post your own opinionated blog post? I would reiterate that you need to read, perhaps outside your own bubble. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | givinguflac 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “Mindlessly” gave full disk access. This is why Apple is restricting FDA further- people are stupid. TCC exists, great, but you’re spending so many comments harping on TCC that you e lost the plot here. | |
| ▲ | cmiles74 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reading it over, it does seem like giving the app full disk access would be enough for it to read our messages. I mean, they are stored on disk somewhere. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly. Meta's claim that Muse would not read your messages without explicit permission was meaningless. | | |
| ▲ | judge2020 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Meta's claim that Muse would not read your messages without explicit permission was meaningless. But it was true and you still haven't refuted that Aten mindless clicked through and allowed Muse full disk access and/or the messages connector setting in the Muse app. |
| |
| ▲ | lapcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes? | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | runarberg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | mapremap 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's definitely faster to just assume that there is evidence to reinforce our existing biases than it is to do the same after succeeding or failing to locate that evidence, so considering that all three methods lead to the same result, the one with the lowest time cost is optimal. | |
| ▲ | piazz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is terrible logic. Trump is stripping the White House for copper and selling it!! Well, actually he’s not, but since we know he’s corrupt, isn’t it safe to just assume he might also be doing this other bad thing? If your decision is to avoid Muse due to Meta’s poor track record, that’s absolutely your prerogative (and a reasonable one!). But specific claims must be evaluated based on their evidence. This article fails that. There’s no story here. | | |
| ▲ | runarberg an hour ago | parent [-] | | The logic here is that Meta (a company known to be malicious) is putting out a product which is potentially dangerous. There are some anecdotal evidence of said dangers, and it is perfectly rational to believe given the history and dangers involved. Best case regulators step in and ban this product before we know the validity of these anecdotes. Worst case, regulators do nothing, the public starts using the product, and these anecdotes turn out to be valid. Off course there is space between the worst and the best case. But given Meta’s history it is safest (and the most rational) to assume the worst. |
|
|
|
