11 ms·

I find it mind blowing that (in the comments of the blog post) someone asked the Path CEO: > Why wasn't this [sending all the contacts to your servers without

by pclark 15y ago

I find it mind blowing that (in the comments of the blog post) someone asked the Path CEO: > Why wasn't this [sending all the contacts to your servers without users knowing] an opt-in situation to begin with? Isn't that against Apple's own T&Cs? and the Path CEO replied: > This is currently the industry best practice and the App Store guidelines do not specifically discuss contact information. However, as mentioned, we believe users need further transparency on how this works, so we've been proactively addressing this. Really guys? REALLY? This is why developers need explicit guidelines, because as they just demonstrated if there are no guidelines companies default to the thing that exploits the end user! (incidentally, its unfair to pick on Path too much as almost all social networking applications do exactly this also.) I actually cringed when I read this "however, as mentioned, we believe users need further transparency on how this works" ... which is why it took someone running a proxy and writing a blog post for you to suddenly be transparent about it. Mind blowing. Why even say that? Btw, times like this? You destroy any and all credibility when you say you are trying to build a company that is built to last or one that is going to follow in the footsteps of Apple. Apple would never do this to their users. (do not make this a discussion about the evil and good sides of Apple. Apple has repeatedly not bowed to companies desires for owning contact information and I expect they will fix this contact hole in the near future.) It's sad because I respect Path and their love of design. But design isn't just about how it looks. It needs to resonate through the entire vision, company, product, and how you treat people.

United857 15y ago
While I still support Path, the best PR move they could do right now is to pro-actively wipe all non-members' contact info from their servers, and then fast-track approval of the new "opt-in" version to the App Store, so that users can re-upload. Played right, this episode could actually give them free publicity. Companies like Facebook and Zynga have been embroiled in far worse controversies, and they've all blown over.
- AJ007 15y ago
  That's not a PR move, that's what you do while crossing your fingers that state attorney generals and the FTC doesn't come after you.
  - mishmash 15y ago
    I've just: 1) saved their Privacy Policy and Terms of Use 2) requested a complete deletion of our family's account 3) requested deletion of any/all stored information 4) considering contacting our lawyer As I emailed to Path's support, our 3-4 year old children's schools, bus companies, physicians, pharmacies and our family lawyer were in that contact list - that's an insane, willful, and quite unexpected violation of our privacy. Worse, it could have easily been solved by adding an entry to their Privacy Policy (under the "What Personal Information Do We Collect?" section) and/or a simple dialog prompt. Unbelievable.
    - damptrousers 15y ago
      Lawyer? God, get a fucking grip. No wonder companies treat their users like morons.
      - mishmash 15y ago
        Because asking for advice from those wiser than oneself clearly makes one a moron.
    - rokhayakebe 15y ago
      considering contacting our lawyer What do you expect to achieve with this step?
      - guywithabike 15y ago
        To get his money back, of course.
        mishmash 15y ago
- pclark 15y ago
  If I were involved in this (and I'm not, I just think transparency - not privacy - matters) I would want the CEO and CTO of Path to create a video that is displayed to all relevant users in their mobile app. The first thing they do is apologise, they explain in plain words what people are up in arms about, the CTO reiterates that a) this was dumb and a poor choice but we are all human, b) what this means (eg: we did this not for our value but to deliver the best experience by matching you to your friends effortlessly) and c) why this matters on a macro scale for the industry. I would respect a company that did this because they are not only addressing users that are aware of it but also users that are not aware (but are affected.) Wiping data is fine but it feels like it doesn't solve the crux of this problem -- communication and transparency. Companies make mistakes and they can fix them, sure, but communicating about them? that's much cooler. (I suspect this is overkill unless mainstream news catches on this - which seems unlikely)
  - rhizome 15y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if there is an engineer there who voiced concerns, but whether they still work there or not would be an open question. Wherever they are, they should be found and put in charge of development.
    - FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
      Ethical engineer: "I've got a problem with doing this, we're storing personal info without permission. Shouldn't we at least have something that lets our users know?" Ambivalent boss: "I don't think it's a problem, who's going to notice anyway?" Not that the ethical engineer will get anything more than personal vindication for actually giving a shit.
  - JS_startup 15y ago
    I would want the CEO to: 1) Immediately delete all of the non-user data 2) Send an apology e-mail to each Path user explaining the situation 3) Write, by hand, a corresponding apology letter for each Path user 4) Hold a townhall-style meeting in which members of the public can ask him questions 5) Pay, out of pocket, the travel expenses of anyone who attends the townhall meeting 6) Wear an indicator of shame (large necklace or a sign) for as long as he is CEO of the company
Bud 15y ago
Mind-blowing level of arrogance. Path just ensured that I will never use their product and that I will actively discourage all my friends, colleagues, co-workers, and users that I support (who number 100 or so) from ever using Path, too. "This is currently the industry best practice"? That's the biggest bullshit line I have ever heard. No, it's most certainly NOT a "best practice", and even if it were, it shouldn't be, and as a CEO, you're supposed to be bright enough to know this. And if you don't know this, you're supposed to be bright enough to make up a better excuse when you get caught. Hint: This ain't it.
- blacksmythe 15y ago
  >> No, it's most certainly NOT a "best practice" Apparently they meant to say 'industry lowest common denominator'.
drunkenmasta 15y ago
Your message was not lost on me. The mind blowing part (to me) is that it takes years before some average Joe (not necessarily security "expert" by profession) decides to take a look at the logs to see what is REALLY going on behind the curtains - revealing something huge like this. Like you write, unless explicitly stated, companies will default to whatever is in their best interests, which is why Facebook going public should be a worrying thing for those users. As someone wrote, "if you are getting something for free you are not the customer, you are the product."
dumdumacct 15y ago
Really? Apple would never do this? http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.htm...
- flixic 15y ago
  This data was never sent to Apple servers.
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    This is false, they do not send a recorded record of your movements to apple, however they do send GPS+WLAN BBSID correlation data back to apple,[1] they claim the processed is anonymized, but there are very powerful deanonymization techniques that can be applied to large data sets. [2][3][4] I live in almost the middle of nowhere, i guarantee nothing like google maps, etc has ever passed this way to map my WIFI point's BSSID onto a physical location, yet the week a member of my family got an iphone, plugging the BSSID into a location api gives the exact location of my house... [1]http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking... [2]http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf [3]http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak09.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak09.pdf [4]http://www.iseclab.org/papers/sonda-TR.pdf http://www.iseclab.org/papers/sonda-TR.pdf
    - uxp 15y ago
      That's circumstantial evidence at best. Here's more useless analytical evidence to suggest that most people don't know everything: when Samy Kamkar[0] first demonstrated geolocation via BSSIDs, I tried out every wireless router in my house, including one that had not been plugged into a wall in over 4 years and never at my current residence, long before Google started wardriving for street maps and well before the first iPhone came out. He was able to accurately map it to my old residence. That means that sometime before December of 2006, someone or something was able to snatch my BSSID from someplace, accurately note it's physical location in the world, and store that away in some database that was used almost 4 years later. I can guarantee you it was not Apple, and I'd be damned surprised if it was Google at that time. [0] http://samy.pl/mapxss/ http://samy.pl/mapxss/
charlieok 15y ago
If “Apple would never do this to their users”, then how is it that Apple provided the API which Path used to do this to their users, without requiring the users to give the app permission (as they do with, say, allowing an app access to a user's location)?
- po 15y ago
  Because it requires 2 API's both of which have legitimate uses: 1.) Get the user's address book and 2.) upload it to a server. Installing an application implies a higher level of trust than a web application. You can't prompt the user for every API that might have a nefarious use. Location data is also much more sensitive so it makes sense to prompt the user for that.
  - charlieok 15y ago
    From the traction this story is getting, it sure looks like address book information is considered sensitive by a lot of people. Possibly on par with location data.
    - po 15y ago
      It's sensitive depending on what you're going to do with it. If you're a native app and you want to access it so that you can show me my address book in some unique way, then I don't want to be bothered giving permission. If you're a native app that's just a front end to some social network and you're going to shuttle it off to some big database in the sky, then maybe not. The problem is that this isn't easily enforceable at the API level without the user having to make decisions. The right level of enforcement is at the app review stage.
      - perfunctory 15y ago
        > The problem is that this isn't easily enforceable at the API level without the user having to make decisions. It's not enforceable even WITH the user having to make decisions. The user can not allow the app to upload one kind of data and disallow another (address book). You can only allow ANY upload or no upload at all.
droithomme 15y ago
Yeah, I only came to the comments to express my utter disgust and anger at the claim anything about this is "currently the industry best practice". What a load. Wait, on second thought. Maybe he is right. Hopefully he will post a comprehensive list of all other companies he is aware of that engage in this practice in order to show his good will in stating it is an industry best practice according to his personal knowledge, and not that he is merely a compulsive liar. I look forward to Mr. Morin's follow up with the list.
steve8918 15y ago
Wait: What about MY INFORMATION if I've never installed Path? If someone I know with my contact information installs Path, does that mean that my information is stored on their servers? How can I remove my information if I've never installed Path before? It doesn't seem right that my contact information, which I have kept private, because someone I know has uploaded that information. Do I not have a right to keep that information private? This would make Path and other companies that upload the entire contacts database the prime candidate for hackers and government agencies that want non-Facebook information about people, given a name, phone number of email address.
- vectorpush 15y ago
  This is an important point, but it's an issue that would arise even if Path allowed voluntary opt-in for contact scraping.
- polemic 15y ago
  Clearly there are a lot of WTFs going on at Path, but this isn't one of them. > Do I not have a right to keep that information private? But you didn't. You gave it to someone else. It's not your information any more. Information about you is not information you own. Privacy and anti-spam laws in various jurisdictions cover what an organisation can do with information they collect about private individuals, but that has nothing to do with ownership.
  - squiggly101 15y ago
    What if I gave someone my silent, protected phone number and that information was stolen by Path like it appears to have done? I may not "own" the information, but I may have rights under law for the information to be protected, and not shared without my permission. Similarly for addresses of people who may be in witness protection programs or escaping violence of some kind. The simple fact is Path stole this information without any kind of consent from the user, information it had no right to access.
  - hessenwolf 15y ago
    In the EU, the third party would be using personal data for other than the reason it was collected, so it is illegal.
nandemo 15y ago
> This is why developers need explicit guidelines, No, this is a matter of security. Apps should not be able to access user data without explicit permission. It's not something you can rely on guidelines for. > Apple would never do this to their users. You're being way too generous to Apple here. They are the ones who provide the API. I've used other phones and their APIs never freely provided my data to apps. Honestly, if I knew the iPhone worked like that I wouldn't have bought it.
- tvon 15y ago
  I think you're assuming too much about the API, all it does is provide access to the address book so you can do things like create a "invite a friend" dialog, it's not meant to be used for bulk uploading to remote servers.
squiggly101 15y ago
Those fuckers should be in jail for this.
dkrich 15y ago
But Apple did do this to their users. They are just as culpable as Path, if not more so. If you are going to provide a platform for app distribution, it is your, and only your responsibility to ensure that private information is not abused if you create the illusion that user information is safe.
- dkrich 15y ago
  Not sure why people are down-voting this, but how about offering a counterargument if you disagree instead of just clicking an arrow like a Rhesus Monkey? Facts are stubborn things.
capsule_toy 15y ago
The problem is any site that decides to grab this data gets an advantage over any site that does not, and the regular users simply don't care enough. About four years ago, a new trend just started emerging. Sites would ask user's for their Gmail passwords and scrape all the users' contacts to invite them for their service. I remember this because I was at a company where I refused to implement a service that requested a user to enter their Gmail password. They got someone else to do it. The issue was that we had competitors using this tactic and they were gaining a lot of users. Unless you have a way to level the playing field, you'll end up just punishing the ethical companies.
TeMPOraL 15y ago
> we believe users need further transparency on how this works, so we've been proactively addressing this I feel like shooting someone every time I see them (or for that matter, anyone else) doing things 'proactively' (at least three times in the comments of original blog post). My BS meter goes all red on that. What does 'proactively addressing issue of transparency' mean? Even the sentence itself is not transparent. I seriously wonder why so many companies communicate using language like that. Is it because of law? If instead, he'd say "well, we really screwed that one up and we want to apologize; right now we're trying to figure out how to fix those issues, please be patient" - could that get them sued, or what?
- narag 15y ago
  The funny thing is that proactively means exactly the opposite: by their own initiative, instead of waiting for someone to find out using a proxy.
billmcneale 15y ago
> so we've been proactively addressing this. "Proactively" doesn't mean acting after you've been caught. Actually, it means exactly the opposite.
NARKOZ 15y ago
The CEO's comment is some grade A bullshit. Obviously they realized this was an issue before they got caught, but if they really thought that it was "important that users clearly understand it" the opt-in would have been in version 1.0, not 2.0.6.
sssparkkk 15y ago
Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but I really think it's mind blowing HN-readers are only now realizing this is happening with these kind of apps. And yeah, if you don't do this (everybody else does AFAIK) you're left with a disadvantage in hooking you up to your friends who also use the service. I actually think the CEO's response is not that bad.
notphilatall 15y ago
I've noticed a pervasive attitude throughout the SF social app community that your app is at a disadvantage if it doesn't use all of the (potentially dirty) tricks that other apps use -- especially in a crowded space. If your app is the only one that doesn't do automatic friend discovery, or post to the Facebook news feed, your growth coefficient is going to suffer. Of course if you're the first to be found out doing these tricks, the backlash can hurt more than it helps. It's a gamble, and although the HN community is (rightly) in uproar, Joe average user likely won't care that his address book was uploaded unless he's explicitly told to be upset about it, or unless someone compromises Path's servers and he's personally hurt by it.
revorad 15y ago
Apple would never do this to their users. Apple makes apps prompt me every time they want to know my location or send me push notifications, but they don't require it for the contacts info. How is managing push notifications more important than leaking private contact info?
- eropple 15y ago
  I don't want to rag on you, but the answer to this is really, really obvious--Path certainly screwed up, but that's no reason to lose your head and start making silly claims. iOS doesn't know what's being uploaded by an app. It can't know. They could ask every time an application wants to access your contacts (which, I think, would really suck for UX, and it'd be a context-free question without indication of what the data would be used for), but after that? There is no practical way to know that that data is being sent over the wire to somebody.
  - revorad 15y ago
    Ok, how about asking the first time?
    - eropple 15y ago
      So...what, exactly? "This thing wants to use your contacts." It's a social network. It can be expected to want to use your contacts. It has no bearing on how Apple is supposed to avoid letting Path package up your contacts and send them to Path's servers.
rmc 15y ago
Apple would never do this to their users. Perhaps not, but remember that Apple are supposed to have approved all Apps on the AppStore. It's supposed to be for user benefit, to prevent malware, viruses and bad applications. However this app was approved by Apple. What, exactly, is the point of the AppStore approval/walled garden approach if this is acceptable?

by pclark 15y ago

United857 15y ago

While I still support Path, the best PR move they could do right now is to pro-actively wipe all non-members' contact info from their servers, and then fast-track approval of the new "opt-in" version to the App Store, so that users can re-upload. Played right, this episode could actually give them free publicity. Companies like Facebook and Zynga have been embroiled in far worse controversies, and they've all blown over.

AJ007 15y ago
That's not a PR move, that's what you do while crossing your fingers that state attorney generals and the FTC doesn't come after you.
- mishmash 15y ago
  I've just: 1) saved their Privacy Policy and Terms of Use 2) requested a complete deletion of our family's account 3) requested deletion of any/all stored information 4) considering contacting our lawyer As I emailed to Path's support, our 3-4 year old children's schools, bus companies, physicians, pharmacies and our family lawyer were in that contact list - that's an insane, willful, and quite unexpected violation of our privacy. Worse, it could have easily been solved by adding an entry to their Privacy Policy (under the "What Personal Information Do We Collect?" section) and/or a simple dialog prompt. Unbelievable.
  - damptrousers 15y ago
    Lawyer? God, get a fucking grip. No wonder companies treat their users like morons.
    - mishmash 15y ago
      Because asking for advice from those wiser than oneself clearly makes one a moron.
  - rokhayakebe 15y ago
    considering contacting our lawyer What do you expect to achieve with this step?
    - guywithabike 15y ago
      To get his money back, of course.
      - mishmash 15y ago
pclark 15y ago
If I were involved in this (and I'm not, I just think transparency - not privacy - matters) I would want the CEO and CTO of Path to create a video that is displayed to all relevant users in their mobile app. The first thing they do is apologise, they explain in plain words what people are up in arms about, the CTO reiterates that a) this was dumb and a poor choice but we are all human, b) what this means (eg: we did this not for our value but to deliver the best experience by matching you to your friends effortlessly) and c) why this matters on a macro scale for the industry. I would respect a company that did this because they are not only addressing users that are aware of it but also users that are not aware (but are affected.) Wiping data is fine but it feels like it doesn't solve the crux of this problem -- communication and transparency. Companies make mistakes and they can fix them, sure, but communicating about them? that's much cooler. (I suspect this is overkill unless mainstream news catches on this - which seems unlikely)
- rhizome 15y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if there is an engineer there who voiced concerns, but whether they still work there or not would be an open question. Wherever they are, they should be found and put in charge of development.
  - FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
    Ethical engineer: "I've got a problem with doing this, we're storing personal info without permission. Shouldn't we at least have something that lets our users know?" Ambivalent boss: "I don't think it's a problem, who's going to notice anyway?" Not that the ethical engineer will get anything more than personal vindication for actually giving a shit.
- JS_startup 15y ago
  I would want the CEO to: 1) Immediately delete all of the non-user data 2) Send an apology e-mail to each Path user explaining the situation 3) Write, by hand, a corresponding apology letter for each Path user 4) Hold a townhall-style meeting in which members of the public can ask him questions 5) Pay, out of pocket, the travel expenses of anyone who attends the townhall meeting 6) Wear an indicator of shame (large necklace or a sign) for as long as he is CEO of the company

Bud 15y ago

Mind-blowing level of arrogance. Path just ensured that I will never use their product and that I will actively discourage all my friends, colleagues, co-workers, and users that I support (who number 100 or so) from ever using Path, too. "This is currently the industry best practice"? That's the biggest bullshit line I have ever heard. No, it's most certainly NOT a "best practice", and even if it were, it shouldn't be, and as a CEO, you're supposed to be bright enough to know this. And if you don't know this, you're supposed to be bright enough to make up a better excuse when you get caught. Hint: This ain't it.

blacksmythe 15y ago
>> No, it's most certainly NOT a "best practice" Apparently they meant to say 'industry lowest common denominator'.

drunkenmasta 15y ago

Your message was not lost on me. The mind blowing part (to me) is that it takes years before some average Joe (not necessarily security "expert" by profession) decides to take a look at the logs to see what is REALLY going on behind the curtains - revealing something huge like this. Like you write, unless explicitly stated, companies will default to whatever is in their best interests, which is why Facebook going public should be a worrying thing for those users. As someone wrote, "if you are getting something for free you are not the customer, you are the product."

dumdumacct 15y ago

Really? Apple would never do this? http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.htm...

flixic 15y ago
This data was never sent to Apple servers.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  This is false, they do not send a recorded record of your movements to apple, however they do send GPS+WLAN BBSID correlation data back to apple,[1] they claim the processed is anonymized, but there are very powerful deanonymization techniques that can be applied to large data sets. [2][3][4] I live in almost the middle of nowhere, i guarantee nothing like google maps, etc has ever passed this way to map my WIFI point's BSSID onto a physical location, yet the week a member of my family got an iphone, plugging the BSSID into a location api gives the exact location of my house... [1]http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking... [2]http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf [3]http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak09.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak09.pdf [4]http://www.iseclab.org/papers/sonda-TR.pdf http://www.iseclab.org/papers/sonda-TR.pdf
  - uxp 15y ago
    That's circumstantial evidence at best. Here's more useless analytical evidence to suggest that most people don't know everything: when Samy Kamkar[0] first demonstrated geolocation via BSSIDs, I tried out every wireless router in my house, including one that had not been plugged into a wall in over 4 years and never at my current residence, long before Google started wardriving for street maps and well before the first iPhone came out. He was able to accurately map it to my old residence. That means that sometime before December of 2006, someone or something was able to snatch my BSSID from someplace, accurately note it's physical location in the world, and store that away in some database that was used almost 4 years later. I can guarantee you it was not Apple, and I'd be damned surprised if it was Google at that time. [0] http://samy.pl/mapxss/ http://samy.pl/mapxss/

charlieok 15y ago

If “Apple would never do this to their users”, then how is it that Apple provided the API which Path used to do this to their users, without requiring the users to give the app permission (as they do with, say, allowing an app access to a user's location)?

po 15y ago
Because it requires 2 API's both of which have legitimate uses: 1.) Get the user's address book and 2.) upload it to a server. Installing an application implies a higher level of trust than a web application. You can't prompt the user for every API that might have a nefarious use. Location data is also much more sensitive so it makes sense to prompt the user for that.
- charlieok 15y ago
  From the traction this story is getting, it sure looks like address book information is considered sensitive by a lot of people. Possibly on par with location data.
  - po 15y ago
    It's sensitive depending on what you're going to do with it. If you're a native app and you want to access it so that you can show me my address book in some unique way, then I don't want to be bothered giving permission. If you're a native app that's just a front end to some social network and you're going to shuttle it off to some big database in the sky, then maybe not. The problem is that this isn't easily enforceable at the API level without the user having to make decisions. The right level of enforcement is at the app review stage.
    - perfunctory 15y ago
      > The problem is that this isn't easily enforceable at the API level without the user having to make decisions. It's not enforceable even WITH the user having to make decisions. The user can not allow the app to upload one kind of data and disallow another (address book). You can only allow ANY upload or no upload at all.

droithomme 15y ago

Yeah, I only came to the comments to express my utter disgust and anger at the claim anything about this is "currently the industry best practice". What a load. Wait, on second thought. Maybe he is right. Hopefully he will post a comprehensive list of all other companies he is aware of that engage in this practice in order to show his good will in stating it is an industry best practice according to his personal knowledge, and not that he is merely a compulsive liar. I look forward to Mr. Morin's follow up with the list.

steve8918 15y ago

Wait: What about MY INFORMATION if I've never installed Path? If someone I know with my contact information installs Path, does that mean that my information is stored on their servers? How can I remove my information if I've never installed Path before? It doesn't seem right that my contact information, which I have kept private, because someone I know has uploaded that information. Do I not have a right to keep that information private? This would make Path and other companies that upload the entire contacts database the prime candidate for hackers and government agencies that want non-Facebook information about people, given a name, phone number of email address.

vectorpush 15y ago
This is an important point, but it's an issue that would arise even if Path allowed voluntary opt-in for contact scraping.
polemic 15y ago
Clearly there are a lot of WTFs going on at Path, but this isn't one of them. > Do I not have a right to keep that information private? But you didn't. You gave it to someone else. It's not your information any more. Information about you is not information you own. Privacy and anti-spam laws in various jurisdictions cover what an organisation can do with information they collect about private individuals, but that has nothing to do with ownership.
- squiggly101 15y ago
  What if I gave someone my silent, protected phone number and that information was stolen by Path like it appears to have done? I may not "own" the information, but I may have rights under law for the information to be protected, and not shared without my permission. Similarly for addresses of people who may be in witness protection programs or escaping violence of some kind. The simple fact is Path stole this information without any kind of consent from the user, information it had no right to access.
- hessenwolf 15y ago
  In the EU, the third party would be using personal data for other than the reason it was collected, so it is illegal.

nandemo 15y ago

> This is why developers need explicit guidelines, No, this is a matter of security. Apps should not be able to access user data without explicit permission. It's not something you can rely on guidelines for. > Apple would never do this to their users. You're being way too generous to Apple here. They are the ones who provide the API. I've used other phones and their APIs never freely provided my data to apps. Honestly, if I knew the iPhone worked like that I wouldn't have bought it.

tvon 15y ago
I think you're assuming too much about the API, all it does is provide access to the address book so you can do things like create a "invite a friend" dialog, it's not meant to be used for bulk uploading to remote servers.

squiggly101 15y ago

Those fuckers should be in jail for this.

dkrich 15y ago

But Apple did do this to their users. They are just as culpable as Path, if not more so. If you are going to provide a platform for app distribution, it is your, and only your responsibility to ensure that private information is not abused if you create the illusion that user information is safe.

dkrich 15y ago
Not sure why people are down-voting this, but how about offering a counterargument if you disagree instead of just clicking an arrow like a Rhesus Monkey? Facts are stubborn things.

capsule_toy 15y ago

The problem is any site that decides to grab this data gets an advantage over any site that does not, and the regular users simply don't care enough. About four years ago, a new trend just started emerging. Sites would ask user's for their Gmail passwords and scrape all the users' contacts to invite them for their service. I remember this because I was at a company where I refused to implement a service that requested a user to enter their Gmail password. They got someone else to do it. The issue was that we had competitors using this tactic and they were gaining a lot of users. Unless you have a way to level the playing field, you'll end up just punishing the ethical companies.

TeMPOraL 15y ago

> we believe users need further transparency on how this works, so we've been proactively addressing this I feel like shooting someone every time I see them (or for that matter, anyone else) doing things 'proactively' (at least three times in the comments of original blog post). My BS meter goes all red on that. What does 'proactively addressing issue of transparency' mean? Even the sentence itself is not transparent. I seriously wonder why so many companies communicate using language like that. Is it because of law? If instead, he'd say "well, we really screwed that one up and we want to apologize; right now we're trying to figure out how to fix those issues, please be patient" - could that get them sued, or what?

narag 15y ago
The funny thing is that proactively means exactly the opposite: by their own initiative, instead of waiting for someone to find out using a proxy.

billmcneale 15y ago

> so we've been proactively addressing this. "Proactively" doesn't mean acting after you've been caught. Actually, it means exactly the opposite.

NARKOZ 15y ago

The CEO's comment is some grade A bullshit. Obviously they realized this was an issue before they got caught, but if they really thought that it was "important that users clearly understand it" the opt-in would have been in version 1.0, not 2.0.6.

sssparkkk 15y ago

Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but I really think it's mind blowing HN-readers are only now realizing this is happening with these kind of apps. And yeah, if you don't do this (everybody else does AFAIK) you're left with a disadvantage in hooking you up to your friends who also use the service. I actually think the CEO's response is not that bad.

notphilatall 15y ago

I've noticed a pervasive attitude throughout the SF social app community that your app is at a disadvantage if it doesn't use all of the (potentially dirty) tricks that other apps use -- especially in a crowded space. If your app is the only one that doesn't do automatic friend discovery, or post to the Facebook news feed, your growth coefficient is going to suffer. Of course if you're the first to be found out doing these tricks, the backlash can hurt more than it helps. It's a gamble, and although the HN community is (rightly) in uproar, Joe average user likely won't care that his address book was uploaded unless he's explicitly told to be upset about it, or unless someone compromises Path's servers and he's personally hurt by it.

revorad 15y ago

Apple would never do this to their users. Apple makes apps prompt me every time they want to know my location or send me push notifications, but they don't require it for the contacts info. How is managing push notifications more important than leaking private contact info?

eropple 15y ago
I don't want to rag on you, but the answer to this is really, really obvious--Path certainly screwed up, but that's no reason to lose your head and start making silly claims. iOS doesn't know what's being uploaded by an app. It can't know. They could ask every time an application wants to access your contacts (which, I think, would really suck for UX, and it'd be a context-free question without indication of what the data would be used for), but after that? There is no practical way to know that that data is being sent over the wire to somebody.
- revorad 15y ago
  Ok, how about asking the first time?
  - eropple 15y ago
    So...what, exactly? "This thing wants to use your contacts." It's a social network. It can be expected to want to use your contacts. It has no bearing on how Apple is supposed to avoid letting Path package up your contacts and send them to Path's servers.

rmc 15y ago

Apple would never do this to their users. Perhaps not, but remember that Apple are supposed to have approved all Apps on the AppStore. It's supposed to be for user benefit, to prevent malware, viruses and bad applications. However this app was approved by Apple. What, exactly, is the point of the AppStore approval/walled garden approach if this is acceptable?