Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
I'm amazed at the opposition here--this can only be good for consumers. There are literally no downsides for us. Now if you're Apple or Google (which I swear to god some of you think you are), then you have a right to be slightly worried as it requires further transparency in exactly how user's data is being used and shared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky
Please explain. I find him an extremely effective and thoughtful US Senator.
Read some of the things Franken has said in his recent attacks (more than one) against Apple. His wanting DUI checkpoint apps removed being one. To refresh your memory, the App Store approved an app that told people where DUI checkpoints were located. Franken wrote some big long letter demanding that Apple remove the app. Well, the government mandated that police could not have DUI checkpoints without making prior notice to the public about where and when such checkpoints would be held. The app simply took public information - mandated by the government - and made it an app. So here comes Sen. Effective and Thoughtful and wants the very thing the government mandated removed. What thought do you think he put into this act? And he hasn't been a senator long enough to be effective - only loud mouth. I'm totally against DUI, but I'm also totally against stupid senators who fail to 1) understand the laws they made, and 2) fail to find out the laws they made before opening their mouths. With this regard, do you think Franken even looked to see if Apple did have a privacy policy before he opened his mouth? http://www.apple.com/privacy/ This was Apple's posted privacy policy from June 21, 2010. It took me less than 5 seconds to find it using Google. I stand by my statement - Sen. Al Franken is an idiot.
1) ? because singling out the companies with the biggest mindshare without looking for the biggest offenders isn?t good governing, only good for grandstanding.
2) ? because the big picture is that the majority of users being ignored by Franken on this issue, not to mention more important and pressing issues of privacy that aren?t being addressed.
3) ? there are downsides if he could have protected everyone but instead only protected those who can get him reelected.
1) Please elaborate on how the two companies that hold far more than 90% of the actively downloaded apps aren't also the "biggest offenders"?
2) The majority of App downloaders users are being directly addressed by Franken. The existence of larger privacy issues is irrelevant--should smaller crimes be ignored if they're not murder?
3) Please explain how he's only targeting those who are getting him re-elected.
With this regard, do you think Franken even looked to see if Apple did have a privacy policy before he opened his mouth? http://www.apple.com/privacy/ This was Apple's posted privacy policy from June 21, 2010. It took me less than 5 seconds to find it using Google. I stand by my statement - Sen. Al Franken is an idiot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that Privacy Policy does not address the issues Franken has raised. He basically wants an explicit privacy policy on a per app basis, which is not covered by Apple's blanket statement.
The majority of App downloaders users are being directly addressed by Franken. The existence of larger privacy issues is irrelevant--should smaller crimes be ignored if they're not murder?
For fuck?s sake your posts are asinine. Your example implies that the same lack of privacy needs a different law to govern it. What Fraken is doing (which I suspect you know, but are choosing to ignore) is that he?s letting all murders off except for the two that will make the biggest headlines.
For fuck’s sake your posts are asinine. Your example implies that the same lack of privacy needs a different law to govern it. What Fraken is doing (which I suspect you know, but are choosing to ignore) is that he’s letting all murders off except for the two that will make the biggest headlines.
So we should let them all go free, according to your argument. Stellar thinking. Really. I'd rather catch the two responsible for 90% of the "crimes" than none at all.
And don't think I didn't catch that you ignored my requests for, you know, facts.
According to the infograph Android Market and App Store account for over 96% of the top 6 app stores active as of April. However, that figure isn?t the same as the number of unique users that can access those app stores. Symbian followed by BlackBerry clearly has more customers being able to access apps than another system.
But that?s beside the point. It sounds like you?re saying privacy rights aren?t worth protecting for the other stores simply because they have less apps to sell. Regardless of how the percentage breaks down either this is about protecting individual rights or it?s not.
This is a political play, nothing more, thus the focus on the "big names" instead of the actual issue. The government's creating a checkmark on their "strong on privacy" campaign platform for the next election so that they can harp on their success (and/or the evils of businesses if they block it) so the average customer will continue to remain ignorant of the issue at large.
Privacy is a very important topic, one that companies SHOULD deal with (and I think Apple and Google are looking at how to deal with it.) The problem with a simple "privacy" policy is that it will just become something akin to the EULA, where most users will scroll to the bottom to find the "I agree" button without even reading it. If anything, this is worse because it then gives companies a legal loophole to point out that they DID inform you that they would sell your email address to (insert spammer here) on line 541, section 17 paragraph 7 of the privacy agreement.
I'm not sure if you've checked it recently, but thanks to the increased space allowed by Google for app descriptions, a lot of developers are using that space to explain (rather clearly) exactly why their app is requesting each permission (and the system tells you these permissions before you can install) The system is still far from perfect, and people do tend to simply click through it, but I really like that these developers are taking the initiative and at least trying to explain their app's privacy issues with the best tools they have been given (but like I said, the average customer still skips over it and gives it one star because the messaging app requires the ability to read your text messages >.<)
So we should let them all go free, according to your argument.
I didn’t say or imply anyone should be let go. In fact, I said all should be accountable to protect all users. I have when on to say there are more pressing privacy issues that are affecting more Americans in a worse way that should be addressed.
Quote:
Stellar thinking. Really. I'd rather catch the two responsible for 90% of the "crimes" than none at all.
So it’s not about protecting the users. Good show¡
Quote:
And don't think I didn't catch that you ignored my requests for, you know, facts.
I only answer questions that are reasonable. Having to write 1000 word response just to address a fallacious query is worth my time.
I don't understand why more transparency should be a problem. To quote Eric Schmidt:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Yeah, the irony.
While I agree in its application to this issue -- Apple, Google, their advertising wings and developers, should not be quietly stealing user information (Although, I've yet to see any evidence that Apple is.) or using it for any purposes without being up front about it -- I think the general principle Schimdt espoused is entirely opposed to the principles of a free society.
Freedom is privacy, and privacy is freedom, and they have their own intrinsic value. And, in a free society, one ought to be able to keep things private simply because one wishes to keep them private. Not because, as Schmidt implies, one must be doing something wrong if one doesn't want others to know about it.
So it’s not about protecting the users. Good show¡
What on earth are you talking about? It was a continuation of your analogy; it is about protecting users, much as--to continue the analogy--taking murders off the street protects everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I only answer questions that are reasonable. Having to write 1000 word response just to address a fallacious query is worth my time.
How is asking you to explain yourself "fallacious"?
Does your grocery store have a "discount" card? Does your retailer ask for a phone number when you purchase with cash? I could go on but, both commercial enterprises and governmental entities track our behavior via a variety of venues. In the age of electronics maintaining ones privacy (Whatever that is )is virtually impossible to control. Like many elected officials, Senator Franken's "request" to Apple and Google is more about him than the purported issue.
While I agree in its application to this issue -- Apple, Google, their advertising wings and developers, should not be quietly stealing user information (Although, I've yet to see any evidence that Apple is.) or using it for any purposes without being up front about it -- I think the general principle Schimdt espoused is entirely opposed to the principles of a free society.
Freedom is privacy, and privacy is freedom, and they have their own intrinsic value. And, in a free society, one ought to be able to keep things private simply because one wishes to keep them private. Not because, as Schmidt implies, one must be doing something wrong if one doesn't want others to know about it.
I agree.
Eric Schmidt suggests that I should wear a t-shirt imprinted with my address data, my contact data, my hobbies, my friends, my political opinion, my income category and more while walking through the outdoor mall in order to enable vendors to offer me the best wares.
I kindly ask for a possibility to give those information to vendors I trust and only if it's necessary. It's part of my self-determination and yes it's a huge part of my freedom.
"Don't be evil" is no satisfying answer to my question "can I entrust You my data?".
And to the argument that there's nothing to hide: You won't find people who wear t-shirts with "I killed xxx at xxx and you can find me here."
I'm no killer just because I leave this sentence on my t-shirt and I have not to add "I'm no killer really!".
I don't understand why more transparency should be a problem. To quote Eric Schmidt:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Why not share the information with the users which data is gathered, shared with 3rd party and for what it is used for?
A trustworthy company has nothing to hide in in this respect.
A privacy policy sounds nice but I fear it will lead to those twenty pages of legal phrasing. I'd prefer a short description of what, for which purpose, shared with whom in the privacy section of an app near by a button with which I can turn it on and off.
This might be a way to turn down a lot of unnecessary paranoia.
I got even a simpler policy. Absolutely no collecting, sharing, copying, distributing, or selling a user's personal information period. If the movie & music industry can use copyright law to stop it, we should have the same right and law to stop this! How about it Franken? Just extend the law and add Personal Info to copyright law.
Does your grocery store have a "discount" card? Does your retailer ask for a phone number when you purchase with cash?
Don't tell me you actually give them your phone number?! That's none of their f#$@!g business! Neither is your name, address or shopping habits. The fact that so many people give this out at the checkstands willingly for no good reason is so stupid it's embarrassing. :-(
Comments
Because they are, by far, the biggest ones, perhaps? You know, the ones that more than 90% of all mobile app sales go through?
I'm amazed at the opposition here--this can only be good for consumers. There are literally no downsides for us. Now if you're Apple or Google (which I swear to god some of you think you are), then you have a right to be slightly worried as it requires further transparency in exactly how user's data is being used and shared.
Please explain. I find him an extremely effective and thoughtful US Senator.
Read some of the things Franken has said in his recent attacks (more than one) against Apple. His wanting DUI checkpoint apps removed being one. To refresh your memory, the App Store approved an app that told people where DUI checkpoints were located. Franken wrote some big long letter demanding that Apple remove the app. Well, the government mandated that police could not have DUI checkpoints without making prior notice to the public about where and when such checkpoints would be held. The app simply took public information - mandated by the government - and made it an app. So here comes Sen. Effective and Thoughtful and wants the very thing the government mandated removed. What thought do you think he put into this act? And he hasn't been a senator long enough to be effective - only loud mouth. I'm totally against DUI, but I'm also totally against stupid senators who fail to 1) understand the laws they made, and 2) fail to find out the laws they made before opening their mouths. With this regard, do you think Franken even looked to see if Apple did have a privacy policy before he opened his mouth? http://www.apple.com/privacy/ This was Apple's posted privacy policy from June 21, 2010. It took me less than 5 seconds to find it using Google. I stand by my statement - Sen. Al Franken is an idiot.
Let see?
1) ? because singling out the companies with the biggest mindshare without looking for the biggest offenders isn?t good governing, only good for grandstanding.
2) ? because the big picture is that the majority of users being ignored by Franken on this issue, not to mention more important and pressing issues of privacy that aren?t being addressed.
3) ? there are downsides if he could have protected everyone but instead only protected those who can get him reelected.
1) Please elaborate on how the two companies that hold far more than 90% of the actively downloaded apps aren't also the "biggest offenders"?
2) The majority of App downloaders users are being directly addressed by Franken. The existence of larger privacy issues is irrelevant--should smaller crimes be ignored if they're not murder?
3) Please explain how he's only targeting those who are getting him re-elected.
With this regard, do you think Franken even looked to see if Apple did have a privacy policy before he opened his mouth? http://www.apple.com/privacy/ This was Apple's posted privacy policy from June 21, 2010. It took me less than 5 seconds to find it using Google. I stand by my statement - Sen. Al Franken is an idiot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that Privacy Policy does not address the issues Franken has raised. He basically wants an explicit privacy policy on a per app basis, which is not covered by Apple's blanket statement.
The majority of App downloaders users are being directly addressed by Franken. The existence of larger privacy issues is irrelevant--should smaller crimes be ignored if they're not murder?
For fuck?s sake your posts are asinine. Your example implies that the same lack of privacy needs a different law to govern it. What Fraken is doing (which I suspect you know, but are choosing to ignore) is that he?s letting all murders off except for the two that will make the biggest headlines.
For fuck’s sake your posts are asinine. Your example implies that the same lack of privacy needs a different law to govern it. What Fraken is doing (which I suspect you know, but are choosing to ignore) is that he’s letting all murders off except for the two that will make the biggest headlines.
So we should let them all go free, according to your argument. Stellar thinking. Really. I'd rather catch the two responsible for 90% of the "crimes" than none at all.
And don't think I didn't catch that you ignored my requests for, you know, facts.
According to the infograph Android Market and App Store account for over 96% of the top 6 app stores active as of April. However, that figure isn?t the same as the number of unique users that can access those app stores. Symbian followed by BlackBerry clearly has more customers being able to access apps than another system.
But that?s beside the point. It sounds like you?re saying privacy rights aren?t worth protecting for the other stores simply because they have less apps to sell. Regardless of how the percentage breaks down either this is about protecting individual rights or it?s not.
This is a political play, nothing more, thus the focus on the "big names" instead of the actual issue. The government's creating a checkmark on their "strong on privacy" campaign platform for the next election so that they can harp on their success (and/or the evils of businesses if they block it) so the average customer will continue to remain ignorant of the issue at large.
Privacy is a very important topic, one that companies SHOULD deal with (and I think Apple and Google are looking at how to deal with it.) The problem with a simple "privacy" policy is that it will just become something akin to the EULA, where most users will scroll to the bottom to find the "I agree" button without even reading it. If anything, this is worse because it then gives companies a legal loophole to point out that they DID inform you that they would sell your email address to (insert spammer here) on line 541, section 17 paragraph 7 of the privacy agreement.
I'm not sure if you've checked it recently, but thanks to the increased space allowed by Google for app descriptions, a lot of developers are using that space to explain (rather clearly) exactly why their app is requesting each permission (and the system tells you these permissions before you can install) The system is still far from perfect, and people do tend to simply click through it, but I really like that these developers are taking the initiative and at least trying to explain their app's privacy issues with the best tools they have been given (but like I said, the average customer still skips over it and gives it one star because the messaging app requires the ability to read your text messages >.<)
So we should let them all go free, according to your argument.
I didn’t say or imply anyone should be let go. In fact, I said all should be accountable to protect all users. I have when on to say there are more pressing privacy issues that are affecting more Americans in a worse way that should be addressed.
Stellar thinking. Really. I'd rather catch the two responsible for 90% of the "crimes" than none at all.
So it’s not about protecting the users. Good show¡
And don't think I didn't catch that you ignored my requests for, you know, facts.
I only answer questions that are reasonable. Having to write 1000 word response just to address a fallacious query is worth my time.
PS: Maybe someone else can explain it to you.
Sen. Al Franken is still an idiot.
Agreed. The best outcome would be for Senator Franken to resign and just go away. He's a jerk and he puts a face on the term 'bozo.'
I don't understand why more transparency should be a problem. To quote Eric Schmidt:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Yeah, the irony.
While I agree in its application to this issue -- Apple, Google, their advertising wings and developers, should not be quietly stealing user information (Although, I've yet to see any evidence that Apple is.) or using it for any purposes without being up front about it -- I think the general principle Schimdt espoused is entirely opposed to the principles of a free society.
Freedom is privacy, and privacy is freedom, and they have their own intrinsic value. And, in a free society, one ought to be able to keep things private simply because one wishes to keep them private. Not because, as Schmidt implies, one must be doing something wrong if one doesn't want others to know about it.
So it’s not about protecting the users. Good show¡
What on earth are you talking about? It was a continuation of your analogy; it is about protecting users, much as--to continue the analogy--taking murders off the street protects everyone else.
I only answer questions that are reasonable. Having to write 1000 word response just to address a fallacious query is worth my time.
How is asking you to explain yourself "fallacious"?
Yeah, the irony.
While I agree in its application to this issue -- Apple, Google, their advertising wings and developers, should not be quietly stealing user information (Although, I've yet to see any evidence that Apple is.) or using it for any purposes without being up front about it -- I think the general principle Schimdt espoused is entirely opposed to the principles of a free society.
Freedom is privacy, and privacy is freedom, and they have their own intrinsic value. And, in a free society, one ought to be able to keep things private simply because one wishes to keep them private. Not because, as Schmidt implies, one must be doing something wrong if one doesn't want others to know about it.
I agree.
Eric Schmidt suggests that I should wear a t-shirt imprinted with my address data, my contact data, my hobbies, my friends, my political opinion, my income category and more while walking through the outdoor mall in order to enable vendors to offer me the best wares.
I kindly ask for a possibility to give those information to vendors I trust and only if it's necessary. It's part of my self-determination and yes it's a huge part of my freedom.
"Don't be evil" is no satisfying answer to my question "can I entrust You my data?".
And to the argument that there's nothing to hide: You won't find people who wear t-shirts with "I killed xxx at xxx and you can find me here."
I'm no killer just because I leave this sentence on my t-shirt and I have not to add "I'm no killer really!".
I don't understand why more transparency should be a problem. To quote Eric Schmidt:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Why not share the information with the users which data is gathered, shared with 3rd party and for what it is used for?
A trustworthy company has nothing to hide in in this respect.
A privacy policy sounds nice but I fear it will lead to those twenty pages of legal phrasing. I'd prefer a short description of what, for which purpose, shared with whom in the privacy section of an app near by a button with which I can turn it on and off.
This might be a way to turn down a lot of unnecessary paranoia.
I got even a simpler policy. Absolutely no collecting, sharing, copying, distributing, or selling a user's personal information period. If the movie & music industry can use copyright law to stop it, we should have the same right and law to stop this! How about it Franken? Just extend the law and add Personal Info to copyright law.
Does anyone here actually provide their real info for those?
Mine says "Lionel Hutz".
I love it when the grocery clerk says, "Have a good day, Mr. Hutz."
They'd never guess your last name is Rulez.
Does your grocery store have a "discount" card? Does your retailer ask for a phone number when you purchase with cash?
Don't tell me you actually give them your phone number?! That's none of their f#$@!g business! Neither is your name, address or shopping habits. The fact that so many people give this out at the checkstands willingly for no good reason is so stupid it's embarrassing. :-(