I would never recommend any Android device for anybody that I know. I'd go so far as to say that it's downright dangerous.
- whoooo danger, danger. I'm just waiting that my android device explodes in my pants. LOL
You sound just like Fox news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I also would never hire anybody who owned an Android device, as they are potentially a walking security disaster, not to mention that they are most likely not the right person for the job, due to their poor taste and overall technical ignorance.
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.
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.
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.
"Apple is evil, therefore, anything evil done by Google while competing with Apple is automatically good." That's the logic behind Google apologetics.
I think it's googles lack of Respect for copyright (eg. Android java APIs, the google book search, adwords tm usage YouTube copyright willfull infringment) and intellectual property rights will soon become so large problems in parallell that google will be prosecuted way harder than it has today.
Im willing to bet the oracle vs. Google lawsuit will have long rippleeffects on Google once its over.
I think Google has exeeded microsofts corporate evilness way long ago. It will become historys biggest corporate it industry lawbreaker. Dont be evil is a joke. Google has demonstrated time and time again that it does not honor the cornerstones of our civilisation (laws and aggreements).
Its unbelievable how many people and organisations (eg. foss organisations, eff) support such copyright missconduct that Google has been makeing. The Google apologists come out of the woodwork trying to defend eg. googles API copying!!! People seem to turn a blind eye to googles missconduct of the law. Its because people dont care about others rights and personal gains outweigh others rights. Clearly they dont understand what they are speaking for
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.
x
Read what the author wrote:
"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."
You don't give your permission and there's nothing in the terms of service allowing it. Add that to the issue that this article is about - Google throws its weight around to get the media to tell stories the way Google wants them to (or suppress the story entirely if it's unfavorable to Google).
Google consistently acts as if they are the masters of the universe and no one has any right to privacy or intellectual property if Google wants it.
The most amazing thing about this is that no matter how evil Google gets, there are plenty of Google shills out there defending them.
That's why I asked if it wasn't supposed to be profitable and it turned out to be.
I believe that the original statement about iTunes was that it wasn't supposed to be a profit center. Apple's 30% would mostly be spent on promotion and providing the service. IIRC, that's pretty much the way it has worked out - it's not very profitable by Apple standards (although it would probably be a huge success by Amazon standards).
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.
iTunes is a free download. It allows importing mp3, mpeg, CDs and other media. It also can access the for pay iTunes Music Store for additional purchases.
I'm not understanding where the irony is. I see nothing about iTunes that has happened the opposite way to what is expected.
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.
Quote:
In a nutshell, the regulations would mandate that the collection of use of personal data would be restricted to the amount of information minimally necessary to provide a service, with fully transparent disclosure to users as to how long their data will be kept, how it will be used, and who has access to it. Users should be able to give “informed consent” to the use of their personal data,
Ooops!
Schmidt's statement about privacy and street view is classic:
Quote:
Google CEO Eric Schmidt said on CNN last week people who were concerned about Google Street View taking pictures of their homes and businesses could protect their privacy: they could “just move.”
"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."
You don't give your permission and there's nothing in the terms of service allowing it.
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.
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.
And here come the red herring arguments from the chief Google shill.
Who cares if it's Google Wallet or the Google App Store? The author stated:
"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."
it's wrong - no matter which of the Google information harvesting groups did it.
Add that to the issue that this article is about - Google throws its weight around to get the media to tell stories the way Google wants them to (or suppress the story entirely if it's unfavorable to Google).
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.
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.
Well, we have your word against the journalist. And the journalist specifically stated that she would be willing to correct her statement if anyone showed it to in error, but that hasn't happened. So Google apparently hasn't been able to show her to be in error.
Besides, if you were correct, why would Google try to pressure the media to withdraw the stories? Why wouldn't they simply show the items in the ToS that you claim exist?
And here come the red herring arguments from the chief Google shill.
Who cares if it's Google Wallet or the Google App Store? The author stated:
"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."
it's wrong - no matter which of the Google information harvesting groups did it.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I would never recommend any Android device for anybody that I know. I'd go so far as to say that it's downright dangerous.
You sound just like Fox news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I also would never hire anybody who owned an Android device, as they are potentially a walking security disaster, not to mention that they are most likely not the right person for the job, due to their poor taste and overall technical ignorance.
way to go. keep it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Person
Here is some advice Google, don't be evil.
Hmm... they're way past that.
From the writer commenting on her censored story.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidn1
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
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 think it's googles lack of Respect for copyright (eg. Android java APIs, the google book search, adwords tm usage YouTube copyright willfull infringment) and intellectual property rights will soon become so large problems in parallell that google will be prosecuted way harder than it has today.
Im willing to bet the oracle vs. Google lawsuit will have long rippleeffects on Google once its over.
I think Google has exeeded microsofts corporate evilness way long ago. It will become historys biggest corporate it industry lawbreaker. Dont be evil is a joke. Google has demonstrated time and time again that it does not honor the cornerstones of our civilisation (laws and aggreements).
Its unbelievable how many people and organisations (eg. foss organisations, eff) support such copyright missconduct that Google has been makeing. The Google apologists come out of the woodwork trying to defend eg. googles API copying!!! People seem to turn a blind eye to googles missconduct of the law. Its because people dont care about others rights and personal gains outweigh others rights. Clearly they dont understand what they are speaking for
That's why I asked if it wasn't supposed to be profitable and it turned out to be.
Read what the author wrote:
"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."
You don't give your permission and there's nothing in the terms of service allowing it. Add that to the issue that this article is about - Google throws its weight around to get the media to tell stories the way Google wants them to (or suppress the story entirely if it's unfavorable to Google).
Google consistently acts as if they are the masters of the universe and no one has any right to privacy or intellectual property if Google wants it.
The most amazing thing about this is that no matter how evil Google gets, there are plenty of Google shills out there defending them.
I believe that the original statement about iTunes was that it wasn't supposed to be a profit center. Apple's 30% would mostly be spent on promotion and providing the service. IIRC, that's pretty much the way it has worked out - it's not very profitable by Apple standards (although it would probably be a huge success by Amazon standards).
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.
https://wallet.google.com/customer/tos/viewdocument.html?family=0.buyertos&gl=AU#SafeHtmlFilter_TermsofService
EDIT 2: This is kinda interesting too. Google's fee schedule for developer's using Google Wallet.
https://checkout.google.com/seller/fees.html
iTunes is a free download. It allows importing mp3, mpeg, CDs and other media. It also can access the for pay iTunes Music Store for additional purchases.
But to be clear, iTunes is free.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm not understanding where the irony is. I see nothing about iTunes that has happened the opposite way to what is expected.
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.
Quote:
In a nutshell, the regulations would mandate that the collection of use of personal data would be restricted to the amount of information minimally necessary to provide a service, with fully transparent disclosure to users as to how long their data will be kept, how it will be used, and who has access to it. Users should be able to give “informed consent” to the use of their personal data,
Ooops!
Schmidt's statement about privacy and street view is classic:
Quote:
Google CEO Eric Schmidt said on CNN last week people who were concerned about Google Street View taking pictures of their homes and businesses could protect their privacy: they could “just move.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
x
Read what the author wrote:
"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."
You don't give your permission and there's nothing in the terms of service allowing it.
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.
And here come the red herring arguments from the chief Google shill.
Who cares if it's Google Wallet or the Google App Store? The author stated:
"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."
it's wrong - no matter which of the Google information harvesting groups did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Add that to the issue that this article is about - Google throws its weight around to get the media to tell stories the way Google wants them to (or suppress the story entirely if it's unfavorable to Google).
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.
Well, we have your word against the journalist. And the journalist specifically stated that she would be willing to correct her statement if anyone showed it to in error, but that hasn't happened. So Google apparently hasn't been able to show her to be in error.
Besides, if you were correct, why would Google try to pressure the media to withdraw the stories? Why wouldn't they simply show the items in the ToS that you claim exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And here come the red herring arguments from the chief Google shill.
Who cares if it's Google Wallet or the Google App Store? The author stated:
"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."
it's wrong - no matter which of the Google information harvesting groups did it.
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.