2 ms·

Yeah, I think you're missing what happened. > Google’s private app was designed to monitor how people use their iPhones, similar to Facebook’s research app. G

Yeah, I think you're missing what happened. > Google’s private app was designed to monitor how people use their iPhones, similar to Facebook’s research app. Googling this, I don't see references to 1099, W2, or Corp to Corp contracts which might help anyone say it's "internal." Paying someone for a service does not make them a part of internal operations of a company. It's this Screenwise Meter app which got the certificate nixed, and with it, any other apps on that cert were shattered. The aforementioned app was a non-internal app used in a production capacity, which falls out of the bounds of test/dev/internal apps enforced by the contract. Tl;Dr: Google had in service a production application using a developer/internal cert. This caused the cert to fall in scope for revocation.

gojomo 8y ago
I know that's the fuzzy reasoning that's being reported. But the actual terms of Apple's agreement seem to allow "Permitted Users" who are "contractors". Contractors aren't just those issued 1099's: it's anyone "under contract". If the mechanism for bringing participants into "Screenwise Meter" involved a contracted payment, it plausibly matches some of the expressly permitted uses, in the Apple Enterprise terms. (If it included an express written contract that limited the participants' use of the app, it further matches certain explicit requirements of the Apple terms.) (There's another clause about using a specific "Network Extension Framework" that seems like a bigger problem for Facebook/Google, depending on what they likely did with that API and the info retrieved. But these clauses, about "internal use" and "permitted users", seem fully compatible with an internal-research-program using a panel of compensated research-subjects.)
- eganist 8y ago
  Kids as young as 13 were sought for this. They can't sign a contract. They can't become contractors. Why do you keep fighting this? It doesn't even seem like devil's advocate anymore. :/ --- it's anyone "under contract". It's not. I'm not an employment lawyer, but that's definitely not true. At all. Under any circumstances. If you need help with it, check this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendor-a-supplier-a-contractor-and-a-service-provider https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo...
  - gojomo 8y ago
    That's false: minors can enter a contract with parental permission, and some of the coverage has Facebook saying they had parental permission for all underage participants. But further, even if it was a violation if minors were involved, that'd leave open the question of whether use by contracted adults was compliant under the terms. (And supposedly the Google app wasn't offered to minors.) And, paid research subjects meet the legal definition of contractor, as outlined here or elsewhere: https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=939 https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=939 Simply insisting "definitely not true" is not convincing.
    - eganist 8y ago
      Oof. In this case, it's likely (IANAL, nor are you) that each individual user of the service would be described as a vendor selling access to their data. The data itself is not created for Google's (or Facebook's in that previous case) consumption. The users of the service were selling rights and were not producing anything for hire. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendor-a-supplier-a-contractor-and-a-service-provider https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo... https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contractor-vs-vendor https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contracto... --- This is becoming tedious. I'm out.
    - pertymcpert 8y ago
      You're embarrassing yourself.

gojomo 8y ago

I know that's the fuzzy reasoning that's being reported. But the actual terms of Apple's agreement seem to allow "Permitted Users" who are "contractors". Contractors aren't just those issued 1099's: it's anyone "under contract". If the mechanism for bringing participants into "Screenwise Meter" involved a contracted payment, it plausibly matches some of the expressly permitted uses, in the Apple Enterprise terms. (If it included an express written contract that limited the participants' use of the app, it further matches certain explicit requirements of the Apple terms.) (There's another clause about using a specific "Network Extension Framework" that seems like a bigger problem for Facebook/Google, depending on what they likely did with that API and the info retrieved. But these clauses, about "internal use" and "permitted users", seem fully compatible with an internal-research-program using a panel of compensated research-subjects.)

eganist 8y ago
Kids as young as 13 were sought for this. They can't sign a contract. They can't become contractors. Why do you keep fighting this? It doesn't even seem like devil's advocate anymore. :/ --- it's anyone "under contract". It's not. I'm not an employment lawyer, but that's definitely not true. At all. Under any circumstances. If you need help with it, check this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendor-a-supplier-a-contractor-and-a-service-provider https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo...
- gojomo 8y ago
  That's false: minors can enter a contract with parental permission, and some of the coverage has Facebook saying they had parental permission for all underage participants. But further, even if it was a violation if minors were involved, that'd leave open the question of whether use by contracted adults was compliant under the terms. (And supposedly the Google app wasn't offered to minors.) And, paid research subjects meet the legal definition of contractor, as outlined here or elsewhere: https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=939 https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=939 Simply insisting "definitely not true" is not convincing.
  - eganist 8y ago
    Oof. In this case, it's likely (IANAL, nor are you) that each individual user of the service would be described as a vendor selling access to their data. The data itself is not created for Google's (or Facebook's in that previous case) consumption. The users of the service were selling rights and were not producing anything for hire. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendor-a-supplier-a-contractor-and-a-service-provider https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-vendo... https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contractor-vs-vendor https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/248665/contracto... --- This is becoming tedious. I'm out.
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    You're embarrassing yourself.