Google asks journalists to tone down story of "massive" Google Play security flaw - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kr00 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Ah, just like the State Farm commercial!

Man: Where'd you hear that?

Woman: On the internet. They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Man: ..and where did you read that?

Woman: On the Internet

I realize that you may not wish to read the Google disclosure because you couldn't then continue to make believe what you say isn't there really isn't there. For others the policy is here, and the disclosure listed under "Information We Share".
http://wallet.google.com/files/privacy.html

As for you JR, feel free to continue with FUD in the face of facts sir. No reason to change now.

And the fandroid troll emerges. Why do you come here? If this were a story about Apple, you sir, would be foaming at the gills in anger. You sir are one brain dead hypocrite. Do not come to an Apple forum with your garbage, FUD. It's clear you work for google in some way, as you can never admit to any wrong doing by your beloved overlord. I suggest YOU sir watch this (as you demand other to do with any of your linked material). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30

Please stop polluting this forums, just go away. Nobody but you thinks your rubbish adds anything here. Your inferiority complex is obvious, why else do you come here, unless you're being paid to do so? Google are, and always will be, the biggest fraudseters on the face of gods earth. Now bug off.

Might I suggest you follow your own advice and go too. It would improve the site a lot if there were less people here who indulge in this kind of low level ranting.

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.

Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is. 

Not to completely skip over the 'flaw', but hasn't anyone noticed "News.com.au reported that "this story was amended at the request of Google."?

First, Cnet caves to their corporate masters and removeds a product from contention for an award at CES, now their "news" arm "amended" a story at the request of a paid advertiser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfts 

Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.

• http://pedantical.com/newest/2013/2/13/inventing-chromebook-why-bother-to-write-a-super-fast-operating-system

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfts 


Isn't chrome on their chromium netbooks?
Where it calls home every few minutes.
Are you sure you are happy to be tracked on a continuos basis? What do you think they do this for?
Why do they call it Chrome? As a Chemist this has always intrigued me.

No idea. I only use Chrome on my Windows PC at work because IE sucks really bad, and I don't login to any Google account while I'm using it. As for "my" contacts database, it's actually the company's Exchange database, so they aren't my personal contacts. Besides, other than the browser cookies, whatever Chrome on my work PC tracks can't be used to identify me, only my work PC.

However, on my personal machines (Macs) I don't use Chrome at all. I use Safari for everything and Firefox for a small handful of sites that don't work correctly in Safari.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.

I sometimes use "it" to refer to a person when I don't know (for sure) their gender. Some people use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but "they" is plural. The alternative is to say "that person" or "he/she". Cumbersome. The other, rarer case for using "it" is for anyone whose gender identity is "complicated."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) "It"? Really? If one is not even going to acknowledge Gatorguy as a human being it's hard to imagine how one is even trying to be objective.

2) I feel my ability to debate a topic, which in no small part is being able to see the opposing side's argument, is having had many debates with him over the years. I don't usually come away agreeing with his PoV but I often come away understanding it, even if just a little bit, because of his ability to form a cohesive, well thought-out, and cited response.

Well, ignoring the fact that his responses aren't usually well cited -- his citations often range to have nothing to do with the topic to actually contradicting his point, if you read them, which he's counting on most people not doing -- his responses are nothing more than spin, deflection, misdirection, and often outright lies. This isn't a debating society, and there's no reason we have to be "fair and balanced". After all, the truth is usually biased, and debating it doesn't change that fact, especially when one side isn't engaged in honest discussion but is here to "shape" the story. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.

 

Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is. 

Ah TS, are you being willfully ignorant ? The Apple definition of non-personal information is, to put it mildly, defective, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. It is really quite asinine in this context to ignore the fact that the Apple definition is absolutely contrived and not in any way compatible with internationally accepted definitions of personal information:  Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.

If the definition had been invented by some idiot with no professional experience in privacy law it might be excusable, but that's not the case. It was defined by professionals who are familiar with privacy laws and regulations worldwide. But when it comes from a professional then it must be assumed that it is intentional.

The point is that it is trivial to link various pieces of "apple-defined" non-personal information to identify people. This is why the laws are formulated to include "identifiable" personal information. So please, give it a rest. Nobody can be so stupid as not to see through that. But since we don't have any insight into what apple is really doing it is a bit difficult to say more than it looks like a ruse which will create the illusion that they are not processing personal information while at the same time opening a back door to permit it.  To me it seems quite obvious that the specific inclusion of "direct" in the definition, is something that requires closer examination.

And before you start arguing that this is a US Company and subject only to US laws, you may wish to wise up on definitions of personal information in various state laws and federal regulations (HIPAA for example). In any case, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Apple definition is incompatible with privacy law in the majority of countries which have any such laws at all. 

135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.

Plenty of us really need to go outside more.

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.

So you object to the idea of Apple stating that their customers have eyes of a certain color. You'd prefer third-parties not even know that Apple's customers have eyes at all. Got it. 

Originally Posted by Euphonious 
135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.

 

Plenty of us really need to go outside more.

I ask because I genuinely don't think you know: you do realize this is a discussion forum, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

But, why does it want to upload your entire Contacts database, even if you don't have and aren't logged into any sort of Google account? What it is is a good piece of spyware, and its primary purpose is to collect information about you and send it back to Google.

I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac and I stopped using Chrome. It calls home repeatedly every session. Firefox and Safari call home maybe one a week to check for updates. Other than to check for updates, a browser has no reason to call home. You are right it is spyware. 

Originally Posted by TBell 
I have Little Snitch installed on my Mac and I stopped using Chrome. It calls home repeatedly every session.

I love that Little Snitch tells me that books.google.com wants to access whatever it thinks it needs on my computer.

I tell it no, every single time, and then in the same session if I want to go to YouTube, the entire website refuses access. I get the Safari load error page.

Hilarious that Google thinks that every single one of their services deserves fingers in all the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.

 

So you object to the idea of Apple stating that their customers have eyes of a certain color. You'd prefer third-parties not even know that Apple's customers have eyes at all. Got it. 

Originally Posted by Euphonious 
135 posts bickering about whether Google is more evil than Apple, or vice versa.

 

Plenty of us really need to go outside more.

 

I ask because I genuinely don't think you know: you do realize this is a discussion forum, right?

Stop being cute TS.  Doesn't it strike you as weird and worth questioning when a company starts publishing a privacy policy that is so obviously strange ? Are you so blue-eyed naive that you don't wonder why they want to create their own very limited definition. What's the point of doing this if they don't think it will serve their interests ?

Funny really, but until a forum contributor published the Apple privacy policy I hadn't felt the need to examine it at all, but then I found that it is formulated in such a way as to be deceptively misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 
Most Google/Samsung defenders in the forums tend to argue something like "see, Apple does it too!" using spurious examples. They never actually deny that Google/Samsung did whatever they were accused of doing.

 

Exactly. And to top it off, Apple's NOT doing what Google, et. al. do! There's no "too"! In Apple's list of "Apple affiliated companies"… it's all Apple! Just under different names! It's to be understood that Apple shares the personal information you give them… with Apple! It's them! And then they go on to say that non-personal information is shared with true third-parties, and they state what that non-personal information is. 

Ah TS, are you being willfully ignorant ? The Apple definition of non-personal information is, to put it mildly, defective, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. It is really quite asinine in this context to ignore the fact that the Apple definition is absolutely contrived and not in any way compatible with internationally accepted definitions of personal information:  Restricting the definition of "personal information" to only cover DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE information about persons is simply a trick to deceive the uninformed.

 

 

 

If the definition had been invented by some idiot with no professional experience in privacy law it might be excusable, but that's not the case. It was defined by professionals who are familiar with privacy laws and regulations worldwide. But when it comes from a professional then it must be assumed that it is intentional.

 

The point is that it is trivial to link various pieces of "apple-defined" non-personal information to identify people. This is why the laws are formulated to include "identifiable" personal information. So please, give it a rest. Nobody can be so stupid as not to see through that. But since we don't have any insight into what apple is really doing it is a bit difficult to say more than it looks like a ruse which will create the illusion that they are not processing personal information while at the same time opening a back door to permit it.  To me it seems quite obvious that the specific inclusion of "direct" in the definition, is something that requires closer examination.

 

And before you start arguing that this is a US Company and subject only to US laws, you may wish to wise up on definitions of personal information in various state laws and federal regulations (HIPAA for example). In any case, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Apple definition is incompatible with privacy law in the majority of countries which have any such laws at all. 

What kinds of non-personal information do you think could reasonably be combined to permit identification of a customer?

Originally Posted by Taniwha 
Doesn't it strike you as weird and worth questioning when a company starts publishing a privacy policy that is so obviously strange?

What was strange about it, again? That they don't share your information with anyone without your say-so?

I'm questioning why you're pretending they created their own definition. They give you a list of things they collect, personal and otherwise. Anything not on the personal list, you give them the right to share with third parties. 

Pretty simple to understand. That's also exactly what they say:

What exactly is deceptive about what they said? Are you unfamiliar with the use of the prefix "non-"? They even TELL you exactly what they collect that is non-personal:

You have the option to give them exactly zero of these. Actually, probably one; I forget if zip code is required at any point… Very probably zero of them.

I like that you bring the EU into this, because if they had a problem with so much as the placement of a comma in Apple's documents there would have been a lawsuit about this a decade ago. They obviously don't.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
I was trying to make a funny with he recent news in Englad over horse meat added to beef.

 

Added? It was 100% (willingly, with full knowledge by the company) in some cases! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
I ask because I genuinely don't think you know: you do realize this is a discussion forum, right?

Sometimes it doesn't really seem like it, given the way that posts in favour of Google or other competitors are frequently met with torrents of vitriol or derision which are long on angry rhetoric and short on facts.

It's a discussion forum which provides little or no scope for not toeing the party line. What's the point of 'discussion' if you can't diverge from the common view without being called a 'fandroid troll', a 'Google shill', 'misinformed' or the various other things that I've been called on this forum for saying nice things about competitors?

Even the reproduction of the article in the original post seems to have been edited to strike out the part which criticises Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taniwha 

Stop being cute TS.  Doesn't it strike you as weird and worth questioning when a company starts publishing a privacy policy that is so obviously strange ? Are you so blue-eyed naive that you don't wonder why they want to create their own very limited definition. What's the point of doing this if they don't think it will serve their interests ?

 

Funny really, but until a forum contributor published the Apple privacy policy I hadn't felt the need to examine it at all, but then I found that it is formulated in such a way as to be deceptively misleading.

Not everyone is of the considered opinion that an EU directive is the foundation of our misnamed "international law".

Cheers

Originally Posted by Euphonious 
Sometimes it doesn't really seem like it, given the way that posts in favour of Google or other competitors are frequently met with torrents of vitriol or derision which are long on angry rhetoric and short on facts.

Maybe they should… go to pro-Google, et. al. sites, then. I can imagine posts here that tout others at the expense of Apple would be torn down.

Utter FUD and you know it!

Why in the world wouldn't you have made a comment about irony there?! It's so ripe for that. 

That's a Huddler bug. Fixed now. Thanks for the tip. You could, you know, actually go to the main site and read the story, since it's all right there. And also notice that it's struck out, not completely deleted, so you can still read it. And no words in the story have been changed to downplay anything said.

And I know for a fact that you didn't actually read that part at all! It's PRO-APPLE. NOTHING in there puts Apple in a bad light. You read "Apple", "they're", and "control freaks" and your anti-Apple bent took over and completely made up the rest.

At least make it difficult for us to decide to take this crap off our site once and for all…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Maybe they should… go to pro-Google, et. al. sites, then. I can imagine posts here that tout others at the expense of Apple would be torn down.

What's tiresome is this binary way of looking at the situation - that you have to be 'pro-Google' or 'pro-Apple', and that there's no room for looking at issues in an unbiased way. It encourages one-sided debates and the stifling of opposing views, neither of which are exactly great things for a discussion forum.

If you want to, then go ahead - take it off. But if your response to divergent views is to brand them as 'crap' and expunge them from the site, then it doesn't say much for the quality of your discussion forum.

It's not just anti-Apple posts which could be called 'crap'. There are plenty of pro-Apple posts here which are illogical, badly argued, snide, and frankly downright 'crap'. I'd like to see the day when any of those are removed from the forum for those reasons. And if your main criterion for judging the quality of a post is whether it supports Apple or not, then once again, it doesn't say much for the quality of your discussion forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikon133 

So race intolerance of the past evolves into device ownership intolerance of the present and future.

Oh, the spoils of progress...

Race intolerance is just dumb, because nobody gets to choose what skin color that they are born with.

I discriminate based on other, more relevant factors, including mobile device choice, religion, political persuasion etc. These are all choices that individuals make and are responsible for.

The reporter, Claire Porter, has an update to her story. Good for her! Hope she stays with it (and I hope that, in the face of the pathetic collective tech-news shrug, AI stays with it too.):

---------

UPDATE 1.40pm: After doing some more research, Mr Nolan told News.com.au that sometime before October last year, Google used to provide developers with "alias" email addresses of people that had purchased apps in Google Play, rather than their real email address.

"Sometime around the end of October or November they stopped generating that email and just passed on the real details of the users," Mr Nolan told News.com.au.

Mr Nolan said that this could be a "side-effect" of Google's continued integration of Google+ into all their properties.

"If not, a deliberate decision was made to provide that information to the developers through the Google Checkout Portal, without conveying that the policy had been changed to users."

If this is correct, then it means that Google has only recently begun sharing user information with developers, a small mercy.

However, "every purchase made on Google Play actually does this now," Mr Nolan said. 

"This is new behaviour since October/November but it was at some point either an oversight or a deliberate change."

The problem could be that Google Checkout (a process that was designed for the purchasing of goods online, similar to checkouts seen on eBay or Amazon) was added to the Google Play store without being customised for apps.

There's reason a retailer would need a customer's address, in order to ship their goods to them safely. The same cannot be said for app developers.

News.com.au is endeavouring to get in contact with Google over this. But so far it has refused to comment on the record.

Meanwhile, a developer who wished to remain anonymous told News.com.au that anyone who sells an app on Google Play is required to complete their own tax returns (as opposed to Apple who does it all on behalf of the developers).

However, he said developers are only required to know the suburb of each customer in order to complete a tax return, so it's still not clear why Google is providing so much information to developers. 

Whether this has has always been the case also remains unclear.

If you're selling an app in the Google Play store, News.com.au wants to hear from you.news@news.com.au

Originally Posted by Euphonious 
But if your response to divergent views is to brand them as 'crap' and expunge them from the site…

I believe you'll find there's a universal distaste of views that come from not even reading the content on which you're commenting.

So report 'em!

It's not. Thanks for pretending otherwise, though.

Paraphrasing Eric Schmidt:

"If you don't want somebody to know what you're buying, perhaps you shouldn't be buying it from the Google store!"

This is not a flaw and not surprising.

After all everything Google does is Spyware!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jameskatt2 

This is a HUGE and MASSIVE Privacy Breach by Google.

The European commission on privacy should fine Google a few billion dollars.

Someone at Google needs to hang.

Where have you been?

Why do you think Google bothers to give software away?

OK you don't think !  Enjoy the spyware.