Google asks journalists to tone down story of "massive" Google Play security flaw - Page 7

bullshit. headlines and text copy are changed by editors. "was asked" is not how she would say "Google asked me." she means her boss. the rest of her comment, here, makes it clear she does not agree with the change:

 

"For the people asking how the story was amended: Despite the fact that Google refused to comment on the record, I was asked to change the headline (both the homepage headline and SEO headline inside the story), as well as the standfirst and lead (first paragraph). Google's issue was with the use of the word "flaw". Apparently a system that is designed to share users information with developers without their knowledge or permission and without explicitly saying so in any terms of service is not considered to be a flaw. I have no problem amending stories if they are factually incorrect but the fact is neither developers nor customers were aware of this information sharing and Mr Nolan is not the only developer to express concern over having this information at his disposal. There's little reason app developers should have this information. If Google was going to share this information they should have been clear about this from the start. Hope this clears things up."

 

you have polluted this thread with your petty nit-picking argumentative Google apologia. like the guy in a bar who will never shut up. go home, it's closing time.

http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/, item:
"6. You can make money without doing evil."

Uh-huh.

 

What's wrong with that? It just needs an amendment.

 

6. You can make money without doing evil.

6.1. We just choose not to.

Sorry to hear your morning's off to a rough start.  You may consider cutting back on the coffee.

 

That may be.  And it may also be that writers write their own words. 

 

So far all you've offered is your own conjecture about who actually wrote the piece, and who altered it, but have provided no links to any -- as AnkleSkater would require -- "authoritative source".  It's just stuff you're typing.

 

If don't have any actual information you can share a link to with us, perhaps you could write her for the confirmation of your conjecture?

 

Please do let us know what she says, and if it's any different from what she wrote earlier, kindly ask her why she chose to present things differently for her public readers.

 

Thank you for demonstrating for us your unusual ability to read minds. 

 

But with this demonstration now we must all wonder:  if she wrote "was asked" when she really meant, as you suggested in your previous sentence, "my editors rewrote my sentence for me", then what else could she mean that would contradict otherwise-self-evident phrases?

 

Once we decide that what was written was not what she meant, all sorts of things are possible.

 

For example, when she wrote "Google refused to comment on the record" could she really have meant to say, "Google is run by magic unicorns who communicate via telepathic talents learned from their alien overlords, so while they didn't write a statement they did send their alien emissaries to convey the message on their behalf"?

 

Perhaps where she wrote her name she really meant to write "Dead Elvis"?

 

This is fun.  Thanks for suggesting this.  Please ignore my earlier suggestion about coffee.  It suits you.

 

Thank you for taking the time to quote the full text of her comment so we can all see for ourselves that the word "editor" doesn't appear in her text at all.

 

Whether her editors asked her or Google did is indeed undefined.  But think about it:  if her editors asked her, then that would mean two things that rather dull your point:

 

1. Google isn't the party applying what you believe is the "pressure" she never actually mentions herself but which you, perhaps through your well-established mind-reading, have somehow discerned on your own.

 

2. If her editors felt her original wording was inappropriate, it may simply be the case that her original wording was inappropriate.

 

Of course, as you've reminded us, we live in a world of secret meanings, in which things that are written aren't at all how it happened, and the true meanings are as limitless as one's imagination.

 

So she could indeed be wrong, as you suggest.

 

Or not.

 

Given your conjecture, that's rich.  Sorry to see you go, though.  It's been fun.

Edited by MacRulez - 2/19/13 at 11:02am

Well which is better bug or feature? I still see the feature waaaayyy worse than admitting that it was a omission in coding and will be fixed. Instead if it's a feature and google has done _nothing_ wrong and nothing will change. And the consequence of that google rationale is quite earth breaking and precipitates everything about googles morale and views on privacy and agreements...

Has anyone here actually read the Google TOS?
 

 

Not those making the most noise, certainly. Nor Apple's policies. This not one of the more edifying AI threads.

 

Oh, please, don't play stupid and try to pretend that Chrome doesn't do this. It does it, we all know it does it, and that before Mountain Lion, it was doing it silently in the background.

 

Are you really arguing that Chrome doesn't widely do this, that my computer was specifically targeted by Google? Otherwise, I don't think any sense can be made of your comment doubting that it's widespread. I mean, you've said some crazy stuff in the past, and in this thread, but now you've just gone over to the completely absurd in an attempt to deny reality.

Edited by anonymouse - 2/19/13 at 1:41pm

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said.  

 

It would've been a more sensational story if she brought the policy to light as a mostly unknown user agreement, rather than the way she tried to call it a flaw (which most people would forgive as accidental).

Oh, please, don't play stupid and try to pretend that you can't follow a topic without changing subjects and attempting a straw man to get around not having provided any actual information.

 

I never said what you claim; on the contrary, I've already provided a link describing that data.

 

My invitation for you, however, remains unanswered:  "We're looking forward to your providing a URL describing a widespread incident of Chrome sending identifying information without the user's consent."

 

Exactly what identifying information do you imagine is being sent?

 

And can you, or TBell, or ErictheHalfBee, anyone else here kindly provide your Little Snitch output demonstrating that the browser is sending information that identifies you?

 

This question is an earnest one, based on what I hope is a reasonable confidence that you wouldn't be making such a potentially-libelous claim and expressing it repeatedly and vigorously without, of course, having some direct experience to warrant an emotional investment so pervasive that your hatred of Google has come to characterize your presence here.

 

If you're shy about revealing any of the reams of hard evidence we trust you've acquired to back up your spyware accusations, perhaps you could at least answer this simpler, more on-topic question:

 

Have you read the Google TOS that governs Google Play purchases?

The click-bait gambit paid off far better for Claire than for the original blogger; she has 55 comments, while his has a paltry four, including this one:

 

 

So far the sensationalism winner here is Digler, who managed to get more comments that the original author.

 

One wonders is either bothered to simply read the TOS....

TS, you're much less intelligent than I had assumed. You seem to think willful ignorance is something to hang out like a flag. Now frankly I don't care too much if you are incapable or unwilling to excercise anything like analytical intelligence. The facts are clear and whether you chose to ignore them, twist them or otherwise abuse them because of whatever chip you have on your shoulder is your loss.  You also know very well that your last paragraph is a complete reversal of what I actually said. What I was complaining about is not what Apple says IS personal information, but quite the opposite, namely what apple claims (incorrectly) is NOT personal information and which they then say they will use in any way they chose. Still, I suppose it's just another manifestation of what I have seen described as your god complex. But even losers can be entertaining in small doses. You are so obviously out of your depth that it's quite funny really.

 

Doesn't change the fact that the apple privacy policy is deceptive, self-serving, wrong,  and out of sync with most privacy laws worldwide for around 30 years.

 

Have a nice day :-)

 

You're making up crap to fabricate an argument out of thin air. Shut up or tell the truth.

 

And yet Apple treats it as such. Putting MORE security on this that you do not consider personal than YOU believe they have to, despite it also legally BEING personal information.

 

So, since you've yet to actually answer this, what does Apple claim is not personal information that "is"?

 

And yet in no way illegal, immoral, or i-anything (huh, humor), otherwise they would have been taken to court over it long ago. 

 

Also, you quoted muppetry and then insulted my intelligence. I don't want to say you're claiming he's me, but… 

If she wanted hits, she should have used "Apple" or "iPhone" in the headline.

 

Funny!   And true.

 

Ironically, the only people who seemed to care are people on Apple sites.

 

I'm starting to think that Taniwha is just trolling. Apart from not being able to distinguish between us, he appears either not to have read, not to have comprehended, or not to care about the actual contents of Apple's privacy policy. In any case, he doesn't appear interested in addressing our specific points so much as just goading with ad homs.