Hmm... they're way past that.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
From the writer commenting on her censored story.
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.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
I'm really surprised by this article and the comments here. I think the issue here is that Google Play store works differently than the Apple store. When you buy an app in the Play store, it actually says "Pay to:" the app developer. It uses Google Checkout/Wallet, which has a privacy policy that explicitly says it will share this information with the merchant.
Has no one here used Amazon Marketplace? Where's the article and outrage about Amazon doing exactly the same thing there? I think Google's explanation here is entirely satisfactory to me: I'm not buying from Google, I'm buying from the app developer, so of course the developer knows who I am. Just because their store works differently doesn't mean there's a "massive oversight". I get that some people are surprised by this, because lots of people are just used to the way Apple's store works, but that doesn't mean Google's approach is a flaw, "criminal" as other commenters have suggested, or is something that even needs to be fixed.
I wonder how many people are upset about Google sharing this information, but wouldn't think twice about installing a *free* app that requested access to enumerate accounts on the phone, allowing it to send that data back to the app developer without the user even knowing about it.
I'm really surprised by this article and the comments here. I think the issue here is that Google Play store works differently than the Apple store. When you buy an app in the Play store, it actually says "Pay to:" the app developer. It uses Google Checkout/Wallet, which has a privacy policy that explicitly says it will share this information with the merchant.
Has no one here used Amazon Marketplace? Where's the article and outrage about Amazon doing exactly the same thing there? I think Google's explanation here is entirely satisfactory to me: I'm not buying from Google, I'm buying from the app developer, so of course the developer knows who I am. Just because their store works differently doesn't mean there's a "massive oversight". I get that some people are surprised by this, because lots of people are just used to the way Apple's store works, but that doesn't mean Google's approach is a flaw, "criminal" as other commenters have suggested, or is something that even needs to be fixed.
I wonder how many people are upset about Google sharing this information, but wouldn't think twice about installing a *free* app that requested access to enumerate accounts on the phone, allowing it to send that data back to the app developer without the user even knowing about it.
It's OK. No harm in bending over.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
Upon the release of the iPod, the hardware was revolutionary, sporting for example a HD. iTunes was often portrayed as having been constructed in support of this revolutionary hardware and was touted as not being, or needing to be, all that profitable in its own right. Now, the ecosystem that is iTunes and the associated store is increasingly viewed as setting Apple products apart in the face of stiff hardware competition and that perhaps, hardware is increasingly supporting iTunes (and that which it spawned, iTunes and App stores), which would be a complete role reversal. This assertion might be quite incorrect but if true would be ironic.
What has this got to do with the dispensing of personal data freely to developers by google and high handed actions of google to demand a change in the way the story is written.
I may regret posting this thread as no doubt there's a noose already tied simply waiting for a neck to put in it, but here goes anyway.
According to the comments following this same story at some other sites, this is not a Google Play app issue per-se but instead comes from Google Wallet. It only has to do with payments are for apps, books and the like. Free apps aren't included or affected, nor contact info shared when no payment is required.
Google Wallet is a payment processor, along the same lines as Pay-pal. And like Pay-pal the actual transaction is between buyer and seller and not buyer and Google. Google treats the developer, publisher, etc as the seller rather than themselves. That's of course quite different than Apple where they are both the seller and the payment processor. Apple "owns" the transaction from beginning to end and never passes along the purchasers contact information to an app developer/provider, except in the case of Newsstand purchases.
The (weak) Google notice that payment details may be shared with the product seller as needed to facilitate the transaction completion is included in the TOS when a Google Wallet account is opened.
Developers comments indicate that when you pay for your purchase using Google Wallet they receive your basic contact details: Buyers name, email address and "region", for instance New Zealand. (I'm certain there's a developer or two here who can confirm) There is no sharing of specific addresses, payment method, CC numbers or that sort so no financial info is exposed.
Now with all that out of the way I think Google should go into more detail in the Google Wallet Terms of Service to be crystal-clear that they are only serving as the payment processor. Put in bold type if need be that contact details WILL be provided to the seller of the product or service, not just a vague statement about what might be shared. Going further, easy to understand TOS agreements should be the law IMO. Obscurely-written multi-page user agreements aren't for the consumers benefit, but only intended to cover the service provider's butt as broadly as the law will allow. Please tell me in the first paragraph or two the most important things I should know if I agree to your Terms of Service. Don't bury those things 10 paragraphs deep.
I also believe there should be some sort of notice in the GooglePlay TOS referencing payments made using Google Wallet and how contact information may be shared. I read thru it and can't find one myself. The fact that the buyers contact info is provided to the seller may be completely reasonable, perhaps even expected. Just don't make it look like you're trying to hide that it's done. That only makes it look nefarious and makes us wonder if there's something else hiding in there that we should know.
EDIT: For those interested, I think this is the Google Wallet TOS that the complaining Australian developer would have been provided when he asked to take part. It explains Google Wallet in detail.
EDIT 2: This is kinda interesting too. Google's fee schedule for developer's using Google Wallet.
https://checkout.google.com/seller/fees.html
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
i agree... the iTunes store was intended to run at a non-profit level... (they did not expect to make a profit)...
but, due to its extreme popularity, it started to generate a profit(the store)... irony no, "that's lucky/nice" yes...
BTW...
is the "Peter Principal" ironic?... (perhaps... I person rises to their own level of incompetence... )
but the itune store was never incompetent... or the program for that matter... ("does not do much" is different than a program being "incompetent"... one might even say that Steve Jobs did NOT suffer Incompetency well... "that is sh!t" ...
Google weren't very clever. By objecting to the idea this was 'flaw', and theerfore unintentional, they appear to be admitting it was intentional, which means in Europe, they run the risk of getting into deep doo-doo for breaching data protection laws.
Ooops!
Schmidt's statement about privacy and street view is classic:
Yes there is. Read the Google Wallet Terms of Service agreement for yourself. It's as open-ended and non-specific as possible just like every other TOS I've read, but the disclosure is there.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
I cant find any specific reference to a story that Google tried to suppress, successfully or not, even searching with Bing. I can nearly guarantee that if it happened Microsoft would let everyone know.
I can see that AI tries to imply it happens, which doesn't mean it really ever has does it? Makes a good story tho, and works as flamebait.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
Users of the service did agree to the sharing of contact information in the typical vague TOS way. No matter how many times you say just the opposite it still won't make it true. Read the agreement for yourself.
By the way you left out the phrase "as usual" when replying to me. Just thought I'd remind you so it doesn't become habit.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
The addendum to the article is still, as of this writing, factually incorrect regarding Apple. They're trying to make it sound like Apple is acting on your behalf as a developer, and thus being the seller themselves when they say Apple files your tax returns for you. Apple does no such thing. An an app developer, you are the seller and Apple is just an intermediary. There are no 1099 forms from Apple or any other tax handling. You are responsible for all taxes yourself. The ONLY difference is that Apple doesn't share the user's contact information while Google does.
But that's the point. Most people DON'T know, and news sites are encouraged not to make a big deal of it. My parents didn't know that Google's computers scanned all their private email on gmail in order to find vulnerabilities their advertisers could take advantage of. They thought their private email was private. Google talks about privacy all the time and implies that their systems are secure, then they switch to this sort of "broken by design" system, and when caught try to downplay the story.
It looks to me that Google may have contacted her to point out an inaccuracy, but claiming she was pressured would make it much more intriguing. I'm looking forward to hearing what she was threatened with if she didn't do what they were demanding. Did they threaten to publish embarrassing pictures of her? Secret bedroom videos? At least a letter from Google legal, right? There's gotta be more juicy details she can share.
Oooh... wait a minute. The writer doesn't say they were pressured to change the story. Never mind.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
The addendum to the article is still, as of this writing, factually incorrect regarding Apple. They're trying to make it sound like Apple is acting on your behalf as a developer, and thus being the seller themselves when they say Apple files your tax returns for you. Apple does no such thing. An an app developer, you are the seller and Apple is just an intermediary. There are no 1099 forms from Apple or any other tax handling. You are responsible for all taxes yourself. The ONLY difference is that Apple doesn't share the user's contact information while Google does.
They are referring to sales tax. In Australia (where the article was written) there is a national 10% sales tax on everything. In that country, instead of Apple sending you the full price the customer pays (minus their 30%), they also take the sales tax off and send it to the government on your behalf (you provide Apple your Australian Business Number when you set up a paid developer account).
Yes, you still have to do a tax return yourself, but when you do, you find that all the sales tax you owe from the App Store has already been credited to your account. It's very convenient.
Google weren't very clever. By objecting to the idea this was 'flaw', and theerfore unintentional, they appear to be admitting it was intentional, which means in Europe, they run the risk of getting into deep doo-doo for breaching data protection laws.
Ooops!
Schmidt's statement about privacy and street view is classic:
Well as for Eric Schmitt: its fairly typical. He seems intent on proving that he is the ultimate a*hole. Mission Accomplished.
Actually I suspect Google WILL get some problems in the EU. They are already in the crosshairs of the Commission and I would be surprised if these little tidbits of additional evidence of systematic privacy law violations will go unnoticed. In one respect Google is not alone when it comes to violations of EU privacy law. ALL american service providers are tarred with the same brush. It seems impossible for an Ami to understand that privacy is a fundamental, constitutional right in the EU and in many EU countries civil rights are respected and expected to be respected, to an extent that is regrettably not the case in the US of A.
No reference to this story in news.google.com yet. Not even under 'Technology.' Not even when you 'Load more stories.'
Of course, the footnote on the page says "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program." so it must be all above-board!
I thought you were putting me on ignore months ago. 
Yeah, I'm well aware that "around these parts" you'd rather not consider me credible.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
I cant find any specific reference to a story that Google tried to suppress, successfully or not, even searching with Bing. I can nearly guarantee that if it happened Microsoft would let everyone know.
I can see that AI tries to imply it happens, which doesn't mean it really ever has does it? Makes a good story tho, and works as flamebait.
So you're claiming the author is a liar?
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
The Android way: Our problems become your problems.
My apology then. As for your cognitive dissonance don't be so uncomfortable with it. Not too late for you to modify your views. I've been there before as most every thinking person has.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
You are distorting my comment and using an ill-fitting counter-argument. But that's ok because I understand it is the normal practice here to deny existence of clouds while refusing to look at the sky.
To be precise, I didn't say Google had a rigorous approval process. I was commenting on "What's really scary is that Google has ZERO approval process when it comes to developers and their apps", which is patently untrue.
No company is perfect. In this area, Google could arguably do better. But that does not excuse anyone from making statements without knowing the facts, or outright lying.
My apology then. As for your cognitive dissonance don't be so uncomfortable with it. Not too late for you to modify your views. I've been there before as most every thinking person has.
What does a statement like this accomplish except to concede that he has you flummoxed?
