5 ms·

sigh Source link without the lifehacker bullshit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop http://on

sigh Source link without the lifehacker bullshit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870469400457602... edit: Direct link to awesome visualization tool : http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/

CodeMage 16y ago
Worse, even the WSJ article has the whiff of sensationalism. For example, this is what you find very near the top of the article: These phones don't keep secrets. They are sharing this personal data widely and regularly, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found. An examination of 101 popular smartphone "apps" -- games and other software applications for iPhone and Android phones -- showed that 56 transmitted the phone's unique device ID to other companies without users' awareness or consent. Later on, the UDID is called "supercookie" and the article emphasizes the fact that it "can never be changed or turned off". That would be truly scary if they showed some proof that the user, as a person, could be easily identified by their phone's UDID. Okay, the carrier has that information, but who else has it? Somehow I don't think that the relationship between your phone's UDID and your identity is something easily available to just about anyone.
- davidu 16y ago
  Are you kidding? The UDID and the phone owner's name are easily correlated. As soon as you register for an account on a game or app, you will connect UDID to your email or first/last name. As soon as that happens, it could easily end up in Rapleaf or another system for other data brokers to get access to. The connection just has to happen once, in one app, for all of them to benefit from it. On the plus side, an app getting this data could auto-register you since it knows you based on your UDID as soon as you install the app, just sending you an email confirmation and a password. :-)
  - gyardley 16y ago
    In order to get any online data broker interested in your data, you have to tie it to their browser cookie. On iOS, this is hard, thanks to sandboxing. You pretty much have to redirect the user to the Safari browser with the UDID in the query string - which is a pretty crap experience for the user, which is why it's rarely done. Even then you've only gotten the data into the mobile browser, which is not what the data market wants to pay for right now. People still predominantly buy things through their desktop computers. I don't know if it's vanity or narcissism or what, but everyone assumes their 'data' has a lot of commercial value. It doesn't. Back when I was running an iPhone analytics startup, I looked into all of this stuff. Wasn't even worth the development work to monetize it.
    - michaelbuckbee 16y ago
      Would you have to actually redirect them to Safari or could you do something like load a hidden webview? (not quite sure of the right terminology here) I was thinking the iOS equivalent of a webpage with a hidden iFrame.
      - gyardley 16y ago
        Cookies are sandboxed, so the cookie you write in your in-app 1x1 pixel webview can't be read by the Safari browser, making it useless. If we could cookie the user properly it's what I'd use for analytics instead of the UDID.
        rgrieselhuber 16y ago
        Launch Safari to have them complete registration online?
        michaelbuckbee 16y ago
        Thanks, that makes sense.
    - davidu 16y ago
      Why do you think you need safari or a browser? There are plenty of other (and easier) ways to make HTTP connections in iOS and implement account registration.
- pilif 16y ago
  I'm not even sure the carrier has the information. At least in countries where the iPhone is sold unlocked. The UDID has nothing to do with the IMEI/IMSI which are both known by the carriers.
  - heresy 16y ago
    I'd be worried if the carrier has this info. I bought the iPhone 4 from Apple, the micro SIM from vodafone, two separate unconnected transactions.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      So what stops the carrier to tie your billing information (which I presume has your name and address on it) to the SIM purchase ? Every time you switch that phone on that phone ID is tied to the SIM on the network.
dshankar 16y ago
What's the HN etiquette on link sources? I read it first on lifehacker, then on WSJ. I thought it was appropriate to give credit to the source I read.
- jpadvo 16y ago
  I think it is to link to the best source. In this case the WSJ, both because of lesser sensationalism and their original work. However, it was considerate of you to think it through like that. :)
- larrik 16y ago
  The official policy is to go to the original source of the story, not the original source YOU read.
  - fakelvis 16y ago
    I completely agree with you and everyone else who takes this stance. However in this case I'm willing to let it slide as in the past two days this story has been submitted three times* with a total of 30 upvotes and one comment between them. In cases like this I usually upvote the first submission and file under 'Things that I think are interesting, but other people seem not to'. * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902
    - larrik 16y ago
      Fair enough, but the official guideline is as follows: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter." I think PG sacrifices a lot of clarity for some cleverness here, so here's my rewrite, that I believe is identical in spirit, and hopefully at least slightly clearer: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the site the blogger found it on." Personally, I'm not a rules nut, but he DID ask for the official stance.
codingthewheel 16y ago
Upboated for recognizing LifeHacker is basically Internet regurge.

CodeMage 16y ago

Worse, even the WSJ article has the whiff of sensationalism. For example, this is what you find very near the top of the article: These phones don't keep secrets. They are sharing this personal data widely and regularly, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found. An examination of 101 popular smartphone "apps" -- games and other software applications for iPhone and Android phones -- showed that 56 transmitted the phone's unique device ID to other companies without users' awareness or consent. Later on, the UDID is called "supercookie" and the article emphasizes the fact that it "can never be changed or turned off". That would be truly scary if they showed some proof that the user, as a person, could be easily identified by their phone's UDID. Okay, the carrier has that information, but who else has it? Somehow I don't think that the relationship between your phone's UDID and your identity is something easily available to just about anyone.

davidu 16y ago
Are you kidding? The UDID and the phone owner's name are easily correlated. As soon as you register for an account on a game or app, you will connect UDID to your email or first/last name. As soon as that happens, it could easily end up in Rapleaf or another system for other data brokers to get access to. The connection just has to happen once, in one app, for all of them to benefit from it. On the plus side, an app getting this data could auto-register you since it knows you based on your UDID as soon as you install the app, just sending you an email confirmation and a password. :-)
- gyardley 16y ago
  In order to get any online data broker interested in your data, you have to tie it to their browser cookie. On iOS, this is hard, thanks to sandboxing. You pretty much have to redirect the user to the Safari browser with the UDID in the query string - which is a pretty crap experience for the user, which is why it's rarely done. Even then you've only gotten the data into the mobile browser, which is not what the data market wants to pay for right now. People still predominantly buy things through their desktop computers. I don't know if it's vanity or narcissism or what, but everyone assumes their 'data' has a lot of commercial value. It doesn't. Back when I was running an iPhone analytics startup, I looked into all of this stuff. Wasn't even worth the development work to monetize it.
  - michaelbuckbee 16y ago
    Would you have to actually redirect them to Safari or could you do something like load a hidden webview? (not quite sure of the right terminology here) I was thinking the iOS equivalent of a webpage with a hidden iFrame.
    - gyardley 16y ago
      Cookies are sandboxed, so the cookie you write in your in-app 1x1 pixel webview can't be read by the Safari browser, making it useless. If we could cookie the user properly it's what I'd use for analytics instead of the UDID.
      - rgrieselhuber 16y ago
        Launch Safari to have them complete registration online?
      - michaelbuckbee 16y ago
        Thanks, that makes sense.
  - davidu 16y ago
    Why do you think you need safari or a browser? There are plenty of other (and easier) ways to make HTTP connections in iOS and implement account registration.
pilif 16y ago
I'm not even sure the carrier has the information. At least in countries where the iPhone is sold unlocked. The UDID has nothing to do with the IMEI/IMSI which are both known by the carriers.
- heresy 16y ago
  I'd be worried if the carrier has this info. I bought the iPhone 4 from Apple, the micro SIM from vodafone, two separate unconnected transactions.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    So what stops the carrier to tie your billing information (which I presume has your name and address on it) to the SIM purchase ? Every time you switch that phone on that phone ID is tied to the SIM on the network.

dshankar 16y ago

What's the HN etiquette on link sources? I read it first on lifehacker, then on WSJ. I thought it was appropriate to give credit to the source I read.

jpadvo 16y ago
I think it is to link to the best source. In this case the WSJ, both because of lesser sensationalism and their original work. However, it was considerate of you to think it through like that. :)
larrik 16y ago
The official policy is to go to the original source of the story, not the original source YOU read.
- fakelvis 16y ago
  I completely agree with you and everyone else who takes this stance. However in this case I'm willing to let it slide as in the past two days this story has been submitted three times* with a total of 30 upvotes and one comment between them. In cases like this I usually upvote the first submission and file under 'Things that I think are interesting, but other people seem not to'. * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902
  - larrik 16y ago
    Fair enough, but the official guideline is as follows: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter." I think PG sacrifices a lot of clarity for some cleverness here, so here's my rewrite, that I believe is identical in spirit, and hopefully at least slightly clearer: "Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the site the blogger found it on." Personally, I'm not a rules nut, but he DID ask for the official stance.

codingthewheel 16y ago

Upboated for recognizing LifeHacker is basically Internet regurge.