My, my. Such poeticism!
- Joined: Sep 2006
- Posts: 11,851
- Select All Posts By This User
My, my. Such poeticism!
MacMall is offering AppleInsider readers an additional 3% off all MacBooks & iMacs with Promo Code: APPLEINSIDER02
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!"
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."
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. . ."?
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!
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!
You may be asked to provide your personal information anytime you are in contact with Apple or anApple affiliated company.
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.
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?
What's even scarier is that a good portion of these could very well just be designed explicitly to be information stealers.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.