or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google asks journalists to tone down story of "massive" Google Play security flaw
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #121 of 256
Wonder what Google thinks about:

Http:www.scroogled.com
post #122 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

post #123 of 256
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
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. 

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #124 of 256

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.

post #125 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kr00 View Post

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.

Well put, couldn't have written it better.
It had a go at me asking whether English was my first language. That's all you will get from him. He is incapable of responding to questions, like a little child answers a question with their own, so immature.
I refuse to have anything to do with google except for YouTube, the ads are background noise that don't register.
I want Apple to remove them as one of the default search engines, but not sure whether they will.
I hate google it's that simple.
post #126 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I have to agree that Chrome is a good browser, and I wish Apple took the web browser race a bit more seriously. But I always felt that Apple (going back to the days when Steve Jobs was willing to make Internet Explorer the default browser in OS X, perhaps as a concession to Microsoft's terms to agreeing to invest in Apple) never really cared that much about winning the browser wars. It was a means to an end, which was to spur on the adoption of OS-agnostic HTML5 (something that leveled the playing field against Windows and technologies like ActiveX and Flash, which were always implemented better on Windows). With Firefox, Opera, and Chrome now sustaining HTML5 adoption, I think Apple is now content to let Safari slide, and that's a shame. I noticed that while FF, Opera, and Chrome have moved to a far more rapid release schedule, browsers like Safari and IE are (more or less) tied to the release of OS versions, so Apple's HTML5 feature compliance tends to lurch forward in annual cycles. I want Safari to be a no-compromise HTML5 compliant WebKit-based browser. The fact that Apple backed-off developing the Windows version of Safari tells me they're content to let others take the lead in browsers. I could use Chrome, but I'd rather use Safari (and I do, warts and all).

Regarding the other thing you said about Google and privacy is that yes, I don't like how Google went from spidering and indexing the web, to gathering information about its users. I'd rather they be a kick-ass search engine that works for users, not data collector of users' data that serves Google's interests.

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.
post #127 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

It had a go at me asking whether English was my first language. That's all you will get from him. He is incapable of responding to questions, like a little child answers a question with their own, so immature.

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.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #128 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

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.

Chromium OS is open-source and I think the licensing would allow you to remove everything that calls home. WIth modern webcode there is no reason why Chrome can't be a stand-alone OS that doesn't need to be connected to the internet and Google's services to work. It has a Linux foundation and getting access to local storage is possible. We've already seen what HTML5/CSS3/JS can do as a UI with WebOS and Windows Metro.

Here is a recent story about how Chrome OS first got started. In a Microsoft-ian fashion Google rejected the idea of a super-fast OS that is loaded into RAM but then later took the idea and ran with it after the original developer was gone.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #129 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


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.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #130 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Again, searched for the story in news.google.com. The search returns just two stories (one of them this), and it provides a link to "all 68 news sources."

But clicking on the link reveals just the same two stories!

What happened to the other 66?

Google says, however, that the 'selection and placement' were all left to a 'computer', so I am sure they're not to blame!lol.gif

Well now, 22:20 GMT, a search for "google play store" in the US Edition of google News doesn't list appleinsider anymore within the First 10 pages, as it did 4 hours ago. We all have become irelevant as it seems. The algorithms of google should know why. I Do Not. But, perhaps m$ is behind all this. I mean The appearance of this topic in the australian blog. Then... I would Not know If I preferred google or m$. probably none of them. But I care about privacy and I don't want to store my data at a company I cannot Trust. I believe only an encrypted cloud is a good cloud. The others are all evil, no matter which company is behind it.
post #131 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #132 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


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. 

post #133 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

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."

I understand how it can be used that way but I don't think that was the intent of the OP.

I do wish we had a truly gender neutral word to describe a person in the singular that doesn't have a pejorative tone. Perhaps we use the word it to denote an unknown gender but then add as prefixes the first letter of she and he to denote these as possible options. For example, "Shit had a go at me asking whether English was my first language." I see no downsides¡

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #134 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
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. 

post #135 of 256

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

 

Plenty of us really need to go outside more.

post #136 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Either way I'd call it a flaw. The only difference I see if it's an unintentional flaw in coding/design or an intentional flaw in the basic security of the livestock customer.

I can almost see "Google Cattle" term emerging in opposition to "Apple Sheep"...
post #137 of 256
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
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 View Post
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?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #138 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


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.

+1
post #139 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I can almost see "Google Cattle" term emerging in opposition to "Apple Sheep"...

I think you just coined a new term.


Warning: Some Google Cattle posts may contain some horse's ass comments.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #140 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

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. 

post #141 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/156021/google-asks-journalists-to-tone-down-story-of-massive-google-play-security-flaw#post_2279086"]This is what you get when you choose Android. You get screwed, and deservedly so. What the hell did you expect? It's a shoddy free OS made by a company that collects information on people, including you.

On this very page, I see that Google Adsense, Google Analytics, Facebook Connect and more are being blocked by a plug in on my Safari.

How come I never see Apple getting blocked on any sites that I visit? Oh, that's right, Apple doesn't spy on people everywhere that they go and then steal their information left & right, and then turn around and hand it over to whoever, including "developers", who may belong to a huge criminal syndicate for all anybody knows.

The average ignoramus walking into a mobile phone store and walking out with a cheap or free Android phone may end up regretting their purchase a whole lot when they eventually find out that what they have to lose is worth a lot more than the few bucks that they think that they may have saved. Is the average Fandroid so ignorant and non caring about their privacy, that they just don't give a damn?

I would never recommend any Android device for anybody that I know. I'd go so far as to say that it's downright dangerous. I also would never hire anybody who owned an Android device, as they are potentially a walking security disaster, not to mention that they are most likely not the right person for the job, due to their poor taste and overall technical ignorance.

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

Oh, the spoils of progress...
post #142 of 256
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #143 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
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 View Post
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.

post #144 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think you just coined a new term.


Warning: Some Google Cattle posts may contain some horse's ass comments.

Shouldn't Google Cattle posts of that sort contain some bullsh*t comments?
post #145 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Shouldn't Google Cattle posts of that sort contain some bullsh*t comments?

I was trying to make a funny with he recent news in England over horse meat added to beef.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/17/13 at 4:45pm

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #146 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
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?

post #147 of 256
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
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?


Are you so blue-eyed naive that you don't wonder why they want to create their own very limited definition.

 

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:


We also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose.

 

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:


occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product

 

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 View Post
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! lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #148 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
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.


Edited by Euphonious - 2/17/13 at 4:58pm
post #149 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


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

post #150 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

I understand the emotional connection we have with horses but I don't think it's disgusting. Horse meat is certainly better than you find in hotdogs. If asked if I prefer horse over beef I'd answer "Nah" even without knowing what horse tastes like so I guess I'm not open minded to the idea of equine over bovine and I obviously think it's wrong to deceive the customer, especially when it comes to food, but I wasn't gagging at the thought of eating Seabiscuit on a bun.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #151 of 256
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
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.

 

It's a discussion forum which provides little or no scope for not toeing the party line.

 

Utter FUD and you know it!


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

 

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

 

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…

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #152 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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.

 

 

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

 

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.

post #153 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I was trying to make a funny with he recent news in England over horse meat added to beef.

Ah. OK. That news never reached NZ. Far from eye, far from heart.

Hope meat wasn't NZ export 1wink.gif
Edited by nikon133 - 2/17/13 at 7:37pm
post #154 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

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.

post #155 of 256

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

post #156 of 256
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
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.


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.

 

So report 'em!


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.

 

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #157 of 256

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!"

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #158 of 256
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.
post #159 of 256

This is not a flaw and not surprising.

After all everything Google does is Spyware!
 

post #160 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google asks journalists to tone down story of "massive" Google Play security flaw
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google asks journalists to tone down story of "massive" Google Play security flaw