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 3

post #81 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


Then why are there over 1000 hello world apps in the Google Play Store? About 4000 if you go to other languages.

Are you saying Google audited these apps?


...... deny existence of clouds while refusing to look at the sky.

My, my. Such poeticism!

post #82 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


What does a statement like this accomplish except to concede that he has you flummoxed?

1confused.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 of 256
Whenever I install an android app, google play store shows me the permissions that are granted to an app. These permissions are supposed to tell the user exactly WHAT data can be accessed by an app. If it doesn't show "App can access the internet" you could feel safe because the app would not be able to send any data to the developer. But now it turns out that Google HIDES some crucial permissions: "The app WILL read your full name, location, email address and perhaps payment data and WILL send it to the developer." The fact that the data isn't actually read by the app but transmitted directly by google should be irelevant. The result is similar. The current state is highly misleading, perhaps on purpose.
post #84 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nedroi View Post

Whenever I install an android app, google play store shows me the permissions that are granted to an app. These permissions are supposed to tell the user exactly WHAT data can be accessed by an app. If it doesn't show "App can access the internet" you could feel safe because the app would not be able to send any data to the developer. But now it turns out that Google HIDES some crucial permissions: "The app WILL read your full name, location, email address and perhaps payment data and WILL send it to the developer." 

Not at all what happens. The issue is with Google Wallet and nothing at all to do with apps or their permissions. Developers have written that no payment/credit card details are reported to them. That stays in Google's hands as the payment processor.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/17/13 at 8:53am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by nedroi View Post

Whenever I install an android app, google play store shows me the permissions that are granted to an app. These permissions are supposed to tell the user exactly WHAT data can be accessed by an app. If it doesn't show "App can access the internet" you could feel safe because the app would not be able to send any data to the developer. But now it turns out that Google HIDES some crucial permissions: "The app WILL read your full name, location, email address and perhaps payment data and WILL send it to the developer." The fact that the data isn't actually read by the app but transmitted directly by google should be irelevant. The result is similar. The current state is highly misleading, perhaps on purpose.

Definitely on purpose since Google says it's not a flaw.

However, you need to be prepared for our Chief Google Shill to tell you that you're being unreasonable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #86 of 256
I guess Google did not imagine how much worse they would look when the reporter made the changes and added their request to the story...
post #87 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It looks to me that Google may have contacted her to point out an inaccuracy,

Really? Maybe your problem is simple reading comprehension.
"this story was amended at the request of Google. News.com.au took out the words 'massive' and 'huge' - referencing the size of the security 'flaw'. The word 'flaw' was also put into inverted commas."

What "inaccuracy" are you referring to? Google objected to a couple of adjectives and the word used to describe the problem - not inaccuracies in the story. The fact that they merely asked for the story to be toned down suggests pretty strongly that there's nothing wrong with the facts presented in the story.

Why is it OK that if some Apple problem affects 3 people on the planet (or none at all, for that matter), it's OK to present it as a massive security flaw, but if Google has a system that releases private information that affects every single user who ever buys an app, it's OK and you can't use the words 'massive' or 'huge'?

So how much does being Chief Google Shill pay, anyway?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #88 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

I guess Google did not imagine how much worse they would look when the reporter made the changes and added their request to the story...

Maybe, but I suspect it's more along the lines of Google not caring. They are determined to act the way that they do and don't regard anyone as having the right to interfere with their plans and activities. At least in the EU, that's likely to lead to some problems.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #89 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not at all what happens. The issue is with Google Wallet and nothing at all to do with apps or their permissions.

So you're admitting that the App ToS that you keep citing is irrelevant.

In any event, you haven't answered the question. Who cares if it's the app or Google Wallet which discloses your private information? They're both controlled by Google and Google is asking authors to change their story in order to try to minimize the impact.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #90 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So how much does being Chief Google Shill pay, anyway?

I forgot today was "Claim Someone is a Shill Day" and not "As Usual Day". Sorry. It's hard to keep up with your schedules sometimes.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not at all what happens. The issue is with Google Wallet and nothing at all to do with apps or their permissions. Developers have written that no payment/credit card details are reported to them. That stays in Google's hands as the payment processor.

 

Are your serious? Google Wallet is the major payment system of google play store. It is integrated into that store. Google makes a statement about security and privacy by showing the app permissions to the user. The users TRUST Google when they accept the permissions shown to them. They WILL conclude that the app / and the developer can only access the data shown to them. And the permission cover every little detail, so you really feel safe when you accept them.

 

And now you and perhaps Google are saying "Look, the permissions are stored in an xml file that comes with the App-Package. That's why we don't need to inform you that your personal data can be sent accross the world. Please get a degree in Law and computer science before complaining, thanks!"

post #92 of 256

You're driving on the expressway. A rock flies off the truck that's 400 feet in front of you and cracks your windshield.

 

When you get within 100 feet of the truck, there is a sticker on the truck that reads: Stay BACK 500 feet.

 

You think "Oops, my bad and call your insurance agent on your Android phone."

post #93 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

1confused.gif

If I had a dollar for every time that you used that emoticon, I'd be rich.....

 

Can I suggest that as your tagline? (Your 'supply of truth' wore thin a while ago.)

post #94 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


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.
No, you're arguing "to the letter of the law". I doubt the original poster is claiming Google has zero checks in place, but commenting on the very real fact it's easy to get an App into Google Play. No different than someone saying "Android is useless." Of course it's not useless, but trying to argue the point is a waste of time.

The fact you are so hung up on a person making such a statement shows your nature. Tell me, if your neighbour has a tree that extends 0.5" into your property are you going to demand something be done? Are you that anal?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #95 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So you're admitting that the App ToS that you keep citing is irrelevant.

In any event, you haven't answered the question. Who cares if it's the app or Google Wallet which discloses your private information? They're both controlled by Google and Google is asking authors to change their story in order to try to minimize the impact.

You kept saying the sharing wasn't disclosed in any TOS. You also said that that authors were being pressured to change their stories, with Google even suppressing some stories altogether. None of your claims appears to be accurate. Are you moving on to a yet another argument now, saying that the writers were being asked to correct something? That we can actually agree on so no argument there.

 

It's plainly stated this particular writer says she was asked to make changes. You act as tho no one does that. Even Apple has been know to contact writers to correct what they think is an inaccurate portrayal of a story. You'll have to be clearer if you think this somehow makes a company evil.

 

Would it have sounded better if writer had said "Google reached out to me. . ."?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/17/13 at 9:28am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 256
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You kept saying ......

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I may regret posting this thread ....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes there is. Read the Google Wallet Terms of Service .....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I cant find any specific reference .....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Users of the service did agree .....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ah, just like the State Farm...

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It looks to me that Google .....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I thought you were putting me on ignore ...

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

My apology then. ...

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

1confused.gif

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not at all what happens. ....

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I forgot today was ....

 

zzzzzz.......

post #97 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

zzzzzz.......

Yet you follow me so closely. Your cognitive dissonance mention was timely then.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #98 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


No, you're arguing "to the letter of the law". I doubt the original poster is claiming Google has zero checks in place, but commenting on the very real fact it's easy to get an App into Google Play. No different than someone saying "Android is useless." Of course it's not useless, but trying to argue the point is a waste of time.

The fact you are so hung up on a person making such a statement shows your nature. Tell me, if your neighbour has a tree that extends 0.5" into your property are you going to demand something be done? Are you that anal?


Oh no, I've revealed my "nature". Do you ... like it? Can I ... see yours? You are such a master at hiding it. What a tease!

 

Are you ... extending 0.5" into ... my property? How fresh!

 

<3

post #99 of 256
Class action in 3, 2, 1...
post #100 of 256
I would have one reaction to Google Play Store Security Flaw.

Did you also notice, that on Android (4+) you cannot use maps with GPS enabled AND use i.e. Facebook without GPS? And BTW facebook app is usually already installed on the device when you buy it.

The reason is that when you download app from Google Play Store, you have to agree that the app has certain permissions, otherwise you cannot download it.
In case of Facebook App and many many others, this is access to your location services (ie. GPS).

Now, you can turn off your GPS on the phone or tablet, but after that you cannot use i.e. maps app, which is kind of handy / essential when it comes to your smartphone.

When you turn the GPS on, so that you can use mapping apps, you are also enabling GPS to all other applications that have access to location services (i.e. Facebook, even running in background).

Facebook app can be running in background and still access your position, so you would have to kill the app running in background in order to deny access to GPS while you use Maps app.
There is no way how to say: Maps, use GPS, Facebook don't use it.

In iOS you can choose what app has access to your location, in Android 4+ you can't.
Edited by robot0001 - 2/17/13 at 9:48am
post #101 of 256

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

post #102 of 256
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

Collection and Use of Personal Information

You may be asked to provide your personal information anytime you are in contact with Apple or anApple affiliated company.

Collection and Use of Non-Personal Information

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.

Disclosure to Third Parties

Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes

 

And somehow you want to spin this as Apple being as bad (or worse) than Google?

ENJOY! lol.gif


Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post
Then why are there over 1000 hello world apps in the Google Play Store? About 4000 if you go to other languages.

Are you saying Google audited these apps?

 

What's even scarier is that a good portion of these could very well just be designed explicitly to be information stealers.


Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post
Class action in 3, 2, 1...

 

Nope.

 

"Breaking: Apple hacked, RSA-4096 encrypted file containing user information taken"

"Breaking: Apple sued for purposely allowing personal data to be viewed by hackers"

 

There's your class action. 1wink.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #103 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidn1 View Post

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.

When you buy an App on the Google Play Store you are buying from Google just like when you buy something at Target you are not buying from the product's manufacturer. I do not want every product company I buy a product from to have my personal information when I buy from a third party retailer.

It wouldn't be hard for a less than scrupulous app maker to take advantage of people by sending emails asking for more info.

When you use Amazon, people know sometimes you are buying from Amazon directly and sometimes a third party. When you use a third party, it is clear. Also Amazon does not allow direct email communications between parties without Amazon acting as a go between. It used to, but people would then just negotiate with the third party directly and cut Amazon out.
Edited by TBell - 2/17/13 at 10:02am
post #104 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidn1 View Post

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.

When you buy an App on the Google Play Store you are buying from Google just like when you buy something at Target you are not buying from the product's manufacturer. I do not want every product company I buy a product from to have my personal information when I buy from a third party retailer.

It wouldn't be hard for a less than scrupulous app maker to take advantage of people by sending emails asking for more info.

 

But that doesn't actually appear to be the case. Google Wallet is acting as a payment processor, but it does explicitly state that it is just collecting the funds on behalf of the seller - pretty much identically to PayPal. In that sense it is quite different to the App Store, where Apple is the seller and pays a percentage on to the developer.

 

The PayPal privacy agreement is rather more up front about the process though. While it is probably not unreasonable that sellers should know at least some details about who is buying their goods and services, the Google Wallet privacy statement is somewhat abbreviated on the subject, and the general Google privacy statement just restricts itself to discussing what the apps can see/share, with just a link to the Wallet privacy terms at the end.

post #105 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

Google could be doing huge business in China, if they would just let the Chinese government filter search results the same way.1tongue.gif
Oh, but I forget, Google is morally opposed to someone filtering the news.
post #106 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

The convoluted 20 step process required to bypass an iPhone unlock code, with requires physical access to the phone, got more play than this story. And why the **** should journalists agree abide by Google's demands?

Well, information is power and Google has lots of it. Perhaps Google would have chose to exercise said power if its "request" was not fulfilled? Who knows?
post #107 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

The convoluted 20 step process required to bypass an iPhone unlock code, with requires physical access to the phone, got more play than this story. And why the **** should journalists agree abide by Google's demands?


Well, information is power and Google has lots of it. Perhaps Google would have chose to exercise said power if its "request" was not fulfilled? Who knows?

The implicit threat was there. No doubt about it.
post #108 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

When you use Amazon, people know sometimes you are buying from Amazon directly and sometimes a third party. When you use a third party, it is clear. .

 

I agree, buying a piece of physical merchandise from Amazon can hardly be compared to downloading an app on the Google store.

 

I order stuff from Amazon every once in a while, I just ordered something this week, and the best price was through a third party retailer, there were quite a few to choose between. I chose the one with the best ratings and the one that had been around for a while. I wouldn't buy anything from a retailer with no track record or bad reviews. People should always use a few seconds to investigate who you are doing business with.  Sometimes giving out personal info is necessary, such as when making a purchase online, but somebody who is just downloading apps from the Google store is exposing themselves to a whole lot more risk, since their information is being so easily shared.

 

The Google app store model is flawed and it's not secure. And the fact that Google doesn't think that it's a security flaw, but rather a deliberate feature shows how little they give a shit about their customers.

post #109 of 256

Also "tone down"? How about you shut up while the media tones up their coverage of what you do, Google? You don't have the right to say what is and isn't uncovered (within legal discovery boundaries, of course).

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #110 of 256
What's so crazy is that if this was Apple.....
post #111 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post


Well, information is power and Google has lots of it. Perhaps Google would have chose to exercise said power if its "request" was not fulfilled? Who knows?

 

More importantly, control of access to information is power, and Google has that. They can push you up the search results, and they can burry you on page 22, and even the implication of that threat is enough to force others into line.

 

This story is about 2 things:

 

1. Privacy and Google are polar opposites. No matter what they tell you about how safe your information is, you can't believe them because they can always drag out "the real terms of service" you were operating under. They've got so many of them, that often cover the same situation, that it' impossible for anyone to know which applies, and you can be sure that Google will apply the one that maximizes their revenue. Bottom line: no matter how much Google or its minions assure you that your information is safe with them, it isn't.

 

2. Google can, will and does use it's power and money to spin the story in its favor, in any way it can, or any way it has to. That includes paying an army of people to post on web sites like this, using its muscle on media outlets, burying search results, and probably bribing bloggers and others to tell its story its way. Gatorguy can come on here and tell us it's not so, but he's got no credibility, just as Google has no credibility. He can also tell us we can't prove any of it, but that's a pretty weak defense when we all know its happening, and can see it in this instance. Sort of like a murderer taunting the cops by telling them they can't prove he did it.


Edited by anonymouse - 2/17/13 at 12:17pm
post #112 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoeinla View Post

What's so crazy is that if this was Apple.....

Exactly.

For comparison. Consider all the nonsense about Apple's 'tracking' of users. The facts were that:
1. Apple devices don't track anyone. Instead, at one time, they kept a list of cell towers that you were near. That only 'localizes' you within a few miles.
2. The devices never sent information to Apple or anyone else.
3. The only way to get access to even that limited information was to have the phone in your hands and hack it.

Yet the media was all over Apple for this "security breach".

Here, we have a case of Google sending out your personal information to third parties - and the shills are acting like it's not a problem at all.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #113 of 256

Google is becoming evil as opposed to their slogan. I would be wary of any product they make as who knows what type of tracking info is on it so they can make a dime on everything you do. Hopefully taxpayer money isn't spent on buying any hardware from them.

post #114 of 256

Why do companies continue to do this when they know they will get fu**ed for it?

post #115 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Why do companies continue to do this when they know they will get fu**ed for it?

As I said, I don't think Google cares. They act like they think they're above the law and any reasonable standards.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #116 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Person View Post

That is very creepy. I am an Apple fan but still use many Google products; Gmail, Chrome, maps, search etc. I have never been overly concerned about them infringing too much on my privacy but now I am creeped out. I am very very seriously considering discontinuing all Google use. The only product of theirs that I truly love is Chrome, so that will be hard.
Here is some advice Google, don't be evil.

 

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.

"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 #117 of 256
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.
post #118 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And somehow you want to spin this as Apple being as bad (or worse) than Google?

 

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. To me, that's implicitly admitting that Google/Samsung did whatever they are accused of doing.

"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 #119 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... Even Apple has been know to contact writers to correct what they think is an inaccurate portrayal ....

 

This is bullshit.  If it was only about "accuracy" then Google *might* have a quibble with the single word "flaw," which is technically inaccurate given that it indicates something broken, whereas this was actually a planned leak of information, not a mistake.  Even there, the word "flaw" actually helps Google out because if it isn't a "flaw," it's by design.  

 

Every other aspect of the story was completely factual including the word "massive" (how could something that affects every single user of the store not be "massive"?)  

 

Apple would never phone up a media outlet over something as trivial as whether the single word "flaw" was correct usage.  Apple would phone up if there was a massive mischaracterisation going on (and they have in the past).  

 

Here, on the other hand, we have Google asking them to change their story away from the simple facts and to put a spin on it that changes the meaning entirely.   In other words here we have a factual story that Google is asking the media outlet to purposely mischaracterise for their own personal benefit.  

 

These are not the same thing at all. 

post #120 of 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I have to agree that Chrome is a good browser...

 

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.

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