5 ms·
> Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this. It's the same with privacy
by voytec 4y ago
> Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this.
It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt.
Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists (which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permission of all people in your address book to share their names and phone numbers), disguised as helping users check if their friends are using a service, or to even allow user to use some app functionality.
Unimaginative accountant that currently leads Apple on one hand bullshits public opinion when disallowing Facebook to steal data from users' devices and, on the other hand, after blocking Zuckerberg's ability to do so, he disgracefully used children protection to announce that Apple will now inspect users' data under the pretense of looking for child porn.
Apple users are being deprived of OS control with most of updates and it's always done under the untruthful pretense of increasing security or protecting users' privacy.
When this little man finally pushes ads to core macOS, he'll state that it's to help users.
- augment003 4y ago> It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt. > Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists This is actually proof that users don’t make good choices when it comes to privacy and security even when they have the necessary information.
- voytec 4y agoTrue, but majority of users, not all of them. On the other hand, there's little non privacy-invasive apps of certain types and corporations make good use of users' inability to pick lesser evil. App Store helps them a lot, too, because to see what invasive practices developer/publisher uses, one has to click on app title to see details, while having a very comfortable "GET" button as the only button and only thing that looks clickable on the list. Cook's typical smoke and mirrors approach.
- augment003 4y agoNot really sure what you are saying other than that users don’t want to bother understanding what they are installing. That’s an argument for stricter store policies, not eliminating the store.
- s3p 4y ago>Applications still require payments in form of contact lists What? It seems like you were trying to make a coherent argument but a list of contacts is in no way comparable to a paid subscription. Microsoft doesn't allow you to buy O365 with your contacts, do they?
- voytec 4y agoNo, but some apps require this to unlock functionality. I consider it a form of payment, just like apps sucking up data from one's phone being a form of non-financial payment for an app disguised as "free".
- dwaite 4y agoI would report such apps. It is firmly in the App Store guidelines that optional permissions (such as permission to track, geolocation, sharing contact lists) cannot result in a program without functionality or in a penalty for users.
- precommunicator 4y ago> which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permission of all people in your address book to share their names and phone numbers [source needed] as GDPR doesn't apply to private individuals and private databases