4 ms·
1) Maybe a solution could be to give power users an escape hatch with big red warnings that doing so voids any support or terms of service guarantees, sort of l
by suchire 7y ago
1) Maybe a solution could be to give power users an escape hatch with big red warnings that doing so voids any support or terms of service guarantees, sort of like how Apple allows non-signed apps, but not be default.
2) Even with a mechanism like the above, part of the issue with communication/social data like Gmail is that you can’t control your own privacy perimeter, because the other party could inadvertently leak your data through another app they connect
- izacus 7y agoThe user was already give a BIG RED WARNING when enabling that, but the media article titles were still: "Gmail app developers have been reading your emails" (The Verge) "Google admits it lets hundreds of other companies access your Gmail inbox" (Telegraph) "Google's 'Dirty Secret' Allows Third Party Apps To Read Gmail Messages" (TechTimes) And all those articles were accompanied by appropriate ravenous Google bashing on this very site. What exactly do you expect a company to do if the developers of HN and the "educated" tech media attacks it for having an open API?
- kabwj 7y agoThat’s why I laugh when people ask Twitter to have an open API for developers again. The press would act the same way for clicks.
- quotemstr 7y ago> the other party could inadvertently leak your data through another app they connect In snail mail, a sent letter becomes the property of the recipient, and the recipient can do whatever he wants with it. Why should email be different? We're not talking about a static "profile" like Facebook has, but individual messages.