airnerd

suddenly newton said:

Tech tear-down porn. How many new iPhones are lost to people who profit from destroying them to promote their websites, YouTube channels (amateur "drop tests") and the like?

As an AAPL investor, I couldn't care less

Shipping without a single software bug.  That's innovation right there!

Sorry, too much risk here.  What if they let the cat or dog out?  What if I forget and they walk in while I'm home?  What happens when the driver is fed up and decides this is the house he's going to rob before he quits?  Or sees my nice sunglasses on the end table and I probably won't notice them gone?   

Need more details about verifying the right driver?  Are the drivers ok with this?  What if they get in but someone was waiting for them to unlock the house and they follow the driver inside, now the driver is at risk too.  


Sorry, I am all for "new and improved" but this sets off too many personal alarms for me.  And yeah, I think the same about Walmarts service.

I owned three fitibit products (all flexes) and my wife had one.  They work during their warranty period and then never again.  First one I had 11 months and it stopped charging or tracking so they replaced it under warranty.  My wife had hers the same time, but it made it 14 months before the same happened.  I got my warranty replacement and 11 months later the same thing happened (but no warranty on a warranty replacement).  I went and for some stupid reason bought a flex 2 and it made it 13 months and died.  

I did everything they suggested: never got it wet, took it off and charged every night, babied it essentially. 

Never again will I own a fitbit piece of junk, not even their stock which everyone was so high on when they IPO'd.  They are junk and only worth their cost if they were 1/3 what they charge.  

steven n. said:

airnerd said:

prof said:

gatorguy said:

It can continue to use the camera even after the intended use is done and over. For instance from the Facebook app you take a pic to post. But if Facebook wanted to be evil that allows the app to continue recording images that you would not have explicitly authorized and continue doing so minute by minute with no way for a user to know it was happening. That's what he brought to Apple's attention. The camera permission does not restrict the camera use to only what the user would intend to grant it. 

Err, if the app is in foreground then it is actively used. How would you distinguish between "intended" and "unintended" use?

So if I have facebook up and no intention of using the camera, could this malicious code be using the camera anyways without any indication it is doing so?

Sounds like it.  Also sounds like someone would need to get an update through the app store with the malicious code so this is much ado about nothing.  

The answer is no. If you have no intention of using the camera with the Facebook app, you would have denied it access to the camera.

You're missing what I'm saying, I grant access to my camera so I can use it and photos.  But that doesn't mean i give it permission to capture any time I have facebook open.