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 7

post #241 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


She wrote "I was asked", and she says the suggestions were from Google.  She doesn't mention "pressure" from her editor, or anyone else.

 

If you have any actual information you may want to provide a link to it, or you can leave your claim unsupported as mere conjecture, whichever you prefer.

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.

post #242 of 256
http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/, item:
"6. You can make money without doing evil."

Uh-huh.
post #243 of 256
Originally Posted by AppleSince86 View Post
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.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #244 of 256

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:29pm
post #245 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The problem was that she originally wanted to use the phrase "massive security flaw"... probably to get hits.

However, it was not a flaw or bug, but rather something done intentionally.

She could've come up with headlines talking about the intentional part instead.  It could've been just as dramatic, and far more accurate.

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...
post #246 of 256

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:29pm
post #247 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

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.

post #248 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Sure, any app can potentially do all sorts of things.  We're looking forward to your providing a URL describing a widespread incident of Chrome sending identifying information without the user's consent.

 

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
post #249 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

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. 

 

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).

post #250 of 256

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:36pm
post #251 of 256

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:35pm
post #252 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

So whether or not a specific data item is PI depends on the availability of the extra, missing, info. And this can come from external sources, which when combined with the original data turn it into PI ! This is what apple allows, and the law prevents. Get it ??

If we do combine non-personal information with personal information the combined information will be treated as personal information for as long as it remains combined.

 

Odd, huh.


And that is the problem. They define non-personal information as above, leaving out the "direct or indirect association with any specific person" and limiting it to direct association. This is NOT what the privacy law in the vast majority of countries would accept as a legitimate definition of non-personal data.

 

Funny how this has gone overlooked by every single government in question, then.


Take the example of a phone number. It is no big deal to search an online phone directory for numbers, and then to retrieve the name, address and other info.

 

 

Guess WhitePages.com is illegal. Phone numbers are personal information, in the first place. As are addresses.

 

 

Then the Apple policy goes on to say that they can use non-personal data in any way. Which does NOT limit them to transferring it to third parties and which does NOT prevent the third parties from linking it with external identifying data.

 

 

How does one link non-personal information to personal information without a baseline? You'd have to have at least one piece of personal information to, you know, get the person.


They only say APPLE treat a combination of personal and non-personal data (by their definition) as personal data so long as it is combined.  So in fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the guarantee is worthless.

 

Great, so Apple is supposed to police themselves and every single other company with which they do business, preventing the use of any and all data obtained by said companies in any and all manners. Except no, that's not how it works. 


The EU definition is in 95/46/EC  ----> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML

 

Look for Article 2, Definitions.

 

Okay.


(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

 

So your actual answer to my question would be what? This gives me nothing.

Hey TS. I've got some advice for you. Free !  .... Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. You're completely out of your depth on privacy law.  I'll ignore the more stupid comments, but take up two because you inadvertently hit the nail.

 

 

How does one link non-personal information to personal information without a baseline? You'd have to have at least one piece of personal information to, you know, get the person.

 

This is EXACTLY what I already pointed out and what you keep on denying. An ADDRESS is not, per se, personal information. So in your haste and determination to ague about things that you simply don't understand you actually concede the point. Thanks.

 

Great, so Apple is supposed to police themselves and every single other company with which they do business, preventing the use of any and all data obtained by said companies in any and all manners. Except no, that's not how it works. 

 

Yes. This is exactly what Apple has do do. Now I don't give a rat's ass whether you believe it or not, but this is what I spend my working days doing.  And NO, you're completely wong. It is EXACTLY how it works. That is something that we enter into contracts with business partners to guarantee. I happen to be one of the people who'se job it is to write the contracts. So when a company wants to do business with my company (actually a multinational, doesn't belong to me personally :-) ) we put terms into the contract to ensure that the partner enters into a binding and legally enforceable contract to make damn sure that they only use any personal data they get from us in the context of the business relationship, in a manner commensurate with the law and ALSO check that they have privacy policies in place which give us useful guarantees that they don't violate any privacy (or other, for that matter) laws in the context of their other business activities. We carry out Audits to check on that. So get used to it TS. That IS how it works. Our company policies require us ONLY to do business with partners who meet our code of conduct and privacy and compliance rules, and we have policies in place that allow us to fire any internal employee who violates the (privacy) law. Zero tolerance. Because of the way EU privacy law works (and to a great extent it does work) we have to do that because of the fact that by transferring personal information to ANY third party, we are 100% liable for what they do with the data.  This makes it difficult to do business with some US companies because they generally have trouble to understand that outside of the US you simply can't do anything you like to make a buck. Fortunately there are increasingly more US companies that are beginning to take privacy seriously. Google is not one of these in my view. Facebook definitely not, Apple evidently also not. There are LAWS that have to be respected. Even by APPLE !!

 

And the outcome of this discussion is that if and when Apple wants to do business with us, then I will make damn sure that they change their definition of personal and non-personal information, at least in the context of our service contract, to bring it into compliance with what the law requires. I will also do an in-depth analysis to ensure that security and other requirements are met in full and guarantees in place in the contracts and internal policies of the partner. If not, then I veto the proposal and it stops there. Now in some cases, we as a company do not have the means to force a specific vendor to enter into a fully compliant contract. So in that case I call in the authorities and if they approve the contract as far as it goes, then that's OK with me (I may not LIKE it, but its the law). But if the authorities veto the proposal then its dead for the entire EU. So Apple/Google/Facebook/Microsoft may be wise to take that into consideration as well.

 

As I said TS, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

The problem with your repeated arguments on this subject is that Apple clearly defines phone numbers, addresses etc., in their privacy policy, as personal information. So arguing that they are not personal information and thus vulnerable to disclosure is irrelevant, as is claiming authority on the subject if you don't read the material first.


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 :-)

post #253 of 256
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
The facts are clear…

 

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


An ADDRESS is not, per se, personal information.

 

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.


…what apple claims (incorrectly) is NOT personal information and which they then say they will use in any way they chose.

 

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


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.

 

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… 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #254 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The problem was that she originally wanted to use the phrase "massive security flaw"... probably to get hits.

However, it was not a flaw or bug, but rather something done intentionally.

She could've come up with headlines talking about the intentional part instead.  It could've been just as dramatic, and far more accurate.

If she wanted hits, she should have used "Apple" or "iPhone" in the headline.
post #255 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

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.

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

Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
The facts are clear…

 

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


An ADDRESS is not, per se, personal information.

 

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.


…what apple claims (incorrectly) is NOT personal information and which they then say they will use in any way they chose.

 

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


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.

 

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… 

 

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.

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