3 ms·

Google's stance seems to be "even if you don't upload contacts, you need to say you upload contacts because we can't prove you don't". They are equating your te

by franga2000 4y ago

Google's stance seems to be "even if you don't upload contacts, you need to say you upload contacts because we can't prove you don't". They are equating your technical ability to do something with you doing it. How is that in any way reasonable? I own a knife, does that mean I stab people? Should I have to say "I stab people" when I enter a kitchen so people know they might be in danger because there's nothing technically preventing me from going on a murder rampage?

chiggsy 4y ago
They could change the code after 8 months to exfiltrate your address book, easily. Most businesses pivot for whatever reasons, a giant database of users contacts would be precisely what one would want in order to mitigate unforeseen problems with the business model. As for your kitchen example, you don't need to say anything. Walk into any room with a weapon and people will know they might be in danger. If I'm in that kitchen, and you walk towards me, I'll move out of arm's reach. Basically it's the same problem: Assurances are worthless. Rationalization provides seemingly excellent reasons for any course of action. So, the onus is on you to show that no harm will be done. It certainly is not the responsibility of some 3rd party to establish this, that is a coercive worldview.
- franga2000 4y ago
  The thing is, there's no way to prove you won't do something in the future if you have the ability to do it. All you can do is promise that you won't, preferably in a legally binding way (such as a privacy policy) and stake your reputation on it. That's the basis of society. Just because someone doesn't believe you doesn't give them the right to force you into a false confession. The app developer says "all your contacts stay on your phone, we only use the internet for calls". Google says "this app is able to access both your contacts and the internet any time for any purpose". Both of those statements can coexist and be presented to the user for evaluation. The app being required to pretend like it's uploading your data is just lying to the user.

chiggsy 4y ago

They could change the code after 8 months to exfiltrate your address book, easily. Most businesses pivot for whatever reasons, a giant database of users contacts would be precisely what one would want in order to mitigate unforeseen problems with the business model. As for your kitchen example, you don't need to say anything. Walk into any room with a weapon and people will know they might be in danger. If I'm in that kitchen, and you walk towards me, I'll move out of arm's reach. Basically it's the same problem: Assurances are worthless. Rationalization provides seemingly excellent reasons for any course of action. So, the onus is on you to show that no harm will be done. It certainly is not the responsibility of some 3rd party to establish this, that is a coercive worldview.

franga2000 4y ago
The thing is, there's no way to prove you won't do something in the future if you have the ability to do it. All you can do is promise that you won't, preferably in a legally binding way (such as a privacy policy) and stake your reputation on it. That's the basis of society. Just because someone doesn't believe you doesn't give them the right to force you into a false confession. The app developer says "all your contacts stay on your phone, we only use the internet for calls". Google says "this app is able to access both your contacts and the internet any time for any purpose". Both of those statements can coexist and be presented to the user for evaluation. The app being required to pretend like it's uploading your data is just lying to the user.