11 ms·

An open challenge to PandoDaily

127 points by davewiner 15y ago

untog 15y ago
This is a false comparison. Uploading your address book to Path is not the same as an app locally reading the contents of your clipboard and asking if you want to use that data. It's not even in the same league. And, loathe though I am to defend PandoDaily, the OP misses the point of their article. Uploading your address book to an app is different than posting it publicly because people trust Path their their data. If they didn't then the really shouldn't be using it in the first place.
- davewiner 15y ago
  Sorry but I think you're missing some data here. Every app on the iPhone can upload your address book, pictures and calendar data to their servers, whether or not they have anything to do with contacts. Every app. It's worth taking a look at the trivial crap we put on our iPads and iPhones thinking they're harmless, when each of them could be leaking all our private bits everywhere.
  - untog 15y ago
    No, I'm aware of that. What I am saying is that uploading data to an app, no matter what that app may be, is not the same as posting it publicly. When you upload to an app, the makers of that app have access to your data. Don't get me wrong- that's a bad thing. But if you upload your data publicly, anyone in the world has access to your data. Drastically different.
    - davewiner 15y ago
      Nothing personal, but I think it's naive to assume that. I once did a deal with a software publisher that required me to turn over the source code. One day I came into the office and found a disk clearly labeled as the source for my product, on the receptionists desk. That was pretty close to public, and I remember that every time I let something sensitive out of my control. Also every few months I have to change my credit card number because a charge appears that I didn't make. Luckily the credit card companies have developed good algorithms for detecting these. Now you might assume that every company that you give your CC to is being careful not to make it public, but if you believe that, you aren't reading the news.
      - untog 15y ago
        Well, the credit card example you give is a good one- you can go through life without paying for anything by credit card, and your credit card will never be stolen. If you do pay for things by credit card, there is a chance that it will be stolen. If you post your credit card details publicly there is a 100% guarantee it will be stolen. I think the same applies to apps. There is a sensible middle ground in there somewhere, and the new permission request alerts from Apple will go a long way to helping with that. But no, never any guarantees about anything.
        davewiner 15y ago
        But this is like someone on the subway reaches into my pocket and takes the credit card, copies the number and then publishes it in a blog post.
    - smacktoward 15y ago
      Because there's no way that your data, once uploaded to the app vendor's servers, can ever leak out. Right? No way they are running their operation on the cheap and don't have their servers secured against intrusion. No way they can be inexperienced developers and build an API that leaks information to improperly authenticated requests. No way they can have a disgruntled employee throw a torrent of it all up when he gets fired. No way they can get bought by someone with fewer scruples and hand your data over to them as part of the acquisition.
      - icarus_drowning 15y ago
        These are all perfectly valid critiques of the notion that "my data is protected by Path's privacy policy", and they are excellent reasons why Path was right to apologize and correct a genuine problem with their app's behaviour. But they aren't really relevant to the parent comment's point, which is that, even with these (potential) holes giving your address book to Path is fundamentally different than posting it publicly. In one instance, your data is public, immediately and unconditionally. In the other, there is potential for abuse that could result in your data becoming public if an arguably unlikely sequence of events were to occur. So it doesn't make any sense at all for Winer to be challenging PD to engage in a behavior that is simply not analogous to the issue at hand. All that Winer's post does is distort the issue, intentionally or not, and distract from the important debate/conversation that Path's policies initiated. I honestly don't see how that's helpful at all. [UPDATED: Minor correct for clearer syntax]
- smacktoward 15y ago
  > Uploading your address book to an app is different than posting it publicly because people trust Path their their data. Are you sure about this? Has every Path user really reviewed Path's data security policies and deemed them satisfactory? Do Path users even have access to that information? And if they did, would most of them be in any position to evaluate it knowledgeably? Or isn't it more likely that they trust Path because they don't know the full scope of what Path has access to? Blind trust is easier to extend to someone the less information you're trusting them with, after all.
  - drumdance 15y ago
    I didn't read all the disclosure documents on my mortgage, but I bought the house anyway. I'm not saying Path is right for what they did, but neither do I think it's the same as publishing everything where identity thieves can get at it. Such black & white thinking is of little use in creating policy.
    - charlesarthur 15y ago
      "I didn't read all the disclosure documents on my mortgage, but I bought the house anyway." You should have read them. All those people who got stung by Adjustable Rate Mortgages? Didn't read the terms either. Now imagine that an app has terms that are a bit like Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
  - moadeel 15y ago
    Yes, I think it is quite a clear statement. Uploading to an app is not the same as posting it publicly. Other points that you are mentioning have more to do with user's willingness to take privacy seriously. Most don't take it seriously because a) it's tedious and time-consuming b) they probably don't understand it c) it is easier to trust the company like everyone else and get onto using the app and 4) ... as long as it does not include criminal, financial, health or their telephone records, everything is pretty much a go go for a user. Users don't care about their privacy unless it has elements of the 4 categories stated above. Users hate hassle and they have pretty much resigned from the fight for privacy mainly because they have found that the benefit of sharing things with others outweighs the willingness to be clear of a trouble that rarely every shows up in their conscience anyway .... think about it ... when was the last time a major security breach occurred that compromised so many millions and devastated so many thousands that it has left a blip or a bad mark on users conscience. We maybe very techi ... but average users are far more occupied with other concerns. So blind trust plays a strong role for them.
- rickmb 15y ago
  It's different in that having your address book uploaded without your permission is actually being the victim a crime in most countries. At least posting it publicly is a voluntary act. Putting yourself in a situation where you are very likely to get mugged would be better comparison. Winer is being mild in his challenge. So yeah, I agree it's not in the same league, but not in the way you mean.
- rsanders 15y ago
  I trust Path with some of my data -- most of it generally created for the specific use within Path.
xpose2000 15y ago
To put it another way: If your address book data was stolen and made public because of poor practices by one of your apps, you'd be pretty upset right? PandoDaily mocking that type of situation is somewhat alarming. However, if PandoDaily doesn't care about that type of scenario then go ahead and publish their address books. Otherwise, it's no laughing matter. Edit: I agree with Dave's point. They wouldn't share it because no one wants this to happen. Therefore they shouldn't be mocking something that is fairly serious.
- davewiner 15y ago
  Thank you. That was the point of the challenge.
kmfrk 15y ago
Here is another great article about the credibility issues the Silicon Valley industry has because of its conflict of interest: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120222,0,704588.column http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120222,0,704....
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
moadeel 15y ago
This is apples to oranges. Most users, use applications because they find about it from trusted sources. They are more interested in just using the application and moving on. Users have shown time and again that as long as the source is trusted (friends, media, overhyping blogs) then they leave it up to the company to make sure their data is private. Calling to a challenge of posting everything to public is misstating what users actually provide: a permission to take their data and keep it private versus here is my data for the rest of the world to see. There is a social contract between the user and the company that is bound by the trust that "my info will not be leaked" and looking at the history of the web I think the companies backed by competent teams take this contract very seriously.
- ruswick 15y ago
  Exactly. This 'challenge' has absolutely nothin to do with what PandoDaily is talking about. There's a huge difference between giving your information to a trusted company versus just throwing it out in public.
- rickmb 15y ago
  In what bizarro world do consumers trust companies that steal their private data without permission? Companies I trust don't break the law and violate my privacy. Contract, especially unwritten "social" contracts don't override the law.
  - moadeel 15y ago
    Theoretically speaking, in every conceivable world, would the users not trust the companies who steal their data. However, practically speaking, users trust the companies who "steal" their data so long as that data is not publicized/leaked. In fact, I would argue as much that most users know that there is information being collected of them that they are not aware of, and they have accepted it because they haven't seen huge negative consequences in their personal life or in the media that make them worried of the collection of their information. In my opinion, it would have to take a data breach of the likes of katrina, tsunami 2004 and BP oil spill all within a few weeks for users to get hammered with the point that they should be more concerned about what is happening with their data. Having said that, there will always be a small group who would be up in arms about the simple act of stealing whether a negative consequence follows or not. And kudos to them for they are doing a service to us all by keeping an eye on these companies. The point that I am trying to get across is that the history of the web along with the time consuming nature of reading huge agreements has led to users entering into social contracts of trust with these companies. They could care less about how much you try to alert them. Companies can continue to take one action after another to alert the users of all that the things company will do and the user will merely see that has an obstacle to get to the app and therefore will simply accept/agree robotically and move on. Why? Users behave in herd mentality, respond to only the most imminent of threats or fear of extremely dire potential consequences. If they see everyone else doing something they will do it too, even if that means you get them to agree to very stiff contracts. They will simply accept it as a way of life and move on. When creating privacy policies, companies play this balancing act. What to constantly alert a user about, how many of them will actually care, we as a company know that all their data will be protected and not used criminally anyway? Whatever path, facebook, twitter and others do with our data is irrelevant to most users so long as most of their trusted circles are doing it too. It just isn't a big issue for them as they maneuver around other pressing issues in their lives. Kudos to those few who have made it a big issue and have kept these companies at their toes. Their effort is worth commending and appreciating, and not mocking as has been done by others.
michaelmior 15y ago
I think the point of the PandoDaily post was that you're already trusting apps with access to your data. You've granted permission for the app to access it any time. When I grant permissions for an app to access by data, this doesn't mean I am allowing my data to be published for the world to see. That's what privacy policies are for.
- jimbobimbo 15y ago
  ...and Dave response's point is that there's no way to guarantee the privacy policy is obeyed, unless it is enforced one way or another. User expectations with regards to the private data were supposed to be guarded by App Store approval process and Apple's iOS access restrictions, however this and now photos somehow slipped through. Pando's mocking of the situation with clipboard example is off the mark. User's expectations from the clipboard is to actually share data (between the applications). Yes, there's a chance that app will publish the contents of your clipboard, but I don't think many users will store sensitive data in the clipboard anyway. In other words - vulnerability of the clipboard is an acceptable trade-off, however accessibility of contacts, photos, other private data is really not.
  - michaelmior 15y ago
    Privacy policies can rarely if ever be enforced or guaranteed. This isn't something new. I can't think of many cases where a third party guarantees adherence to privacy policies. Ultimately if you give someone access to your data, you have to trust that they treat that data appropriately.
byrneseyeview 15y ago
"When you said X, you probably meant Y. But I bet you don't believe Y, thus you were lying about X." How many pointless arguments take this form? He should articulate why he considers the situations comparable, so the Pando people have something to disagree with.
- davewiner 15y ago
  This is a little abstract for me, so I'm not sure I understand the objection. Their point is that we are being silly for caring where our personal data goes. If we're being silly, here's an easy way to prove it. Show us how careless you are with your own personal data. If there's a limit, something you won't do to show how casual you are about it, then we found something that we agree on. My belief is they haven't thought it through, and are just being cute for the sake of being cute, about something that is very serious. Actually trying to help them find a good place. Because where they are now, is not good. Of course imho and ymmv.
  - pbreit 15y ago
    The article referenced an app accessing the clipboard (x) and your challenge involved uploading all of one's contact information and pictures (y).
    - davewiner 15y ago
      You missed the bigger story that they were making light of.
      - pbreit 15y ago
        I didn't miss it.
  - larrys 15y ago
    "My belief is they haven't thought it through, and are just being cute for the sake of being cute" What I find scary sometimes is if you make challenges like you did to Pando you are assuming they even have the same sense of care and responsibility about their data as you or an average person would. This reminds me of someone who runs an amusement ride and says "I let my kids ride that ride" as if that is to imply ultimate safety. It doesn't. To wit: There was a story or two recently about parents who let their teenage daughters sail around the world solo. I don't think most parents would do that.
AznHisoka 15y ago
Nice try. No Pagerank for you!
- cheald 15y ago
  ....do...you even know who Dave Winer is?
  - AznHisoka 15y ago
    why does that matter? I'm judging the content of the article, and it's just accusing another blog of something, just drama.. no valuable content here. just pointless, trivial drama looking for an ego boost.
    - cheald 15y ago
      Hint: scripting.com has a better pagerank than PandoDaily. He's the guy who practically invented blogging.
      - AznHisoka 15y ago
        again, that doesn't matter. Even after knowing who he is now, trivial content is still trivial content. And he might've invented something, but blogging most definitely isn't it. Blogging was going to be come about inevitably once someone invented the internet - that was the hard part. Blogging is just an extension of people expressing themselves.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        hking329 15y ago
        Please, please. Why go there? You've got this thread where you could be having a discussion on an interesting and important topic, but you're wanting to fork it into a personal attack over something that's irrelevant to the topic and that has been discussed ad ad nauseum on tens of thousands of other such threads.
bsimpson 15y ago
The whole point of the PD article was that you trust developers to not do these things because market forces keep them in check. If an app was abusing your privacy, it would be revoked by the marketplace (Apple, Google, BN, or Amazon) and its developer's reputation would be tarnished. Of course, maintaining a database of sensitive information is rife with risk, and it's completely fair for journalists to point that out. However, Path, Hipster, Instagram, etc. have no intention of leaking your data. An article reminding us to give developers the benefit-of-the-doubt in these cases is not even remotely the same thing as an article defending leaking personal data. It's therefore disingenuous of the author to suggest that reminding people to be civil in the ways they react to these situations implies that we should all be comfortable publicly posting our personal rolodexes. Someone else's contact information is not your IP to divulge; however, that doesn't mean we need to start a witch-hunt about it.
- davewiner 15y ago
  There are hundreds of thousands of apps. Not all of them have reps that can be tarnished.
falling 15y ago
So, since every single application in your computer can access all of the same data and do whatever they please, has had that ability since forever and we see that as an advantage (see problems with adding sandboxing on the Mac), why are we so concerned about it on our phones and completely ignore the issues otherwise? The only reason I could come up with is that on the phone we have apps that actually use that data, social networks of various fashions, while on our computers we mostly use apps to do stuff and social networks stay in the browser. Should we be asking OS vendors to add those checks to our computers too?
- davewiner 15y ago
  People are much less careful with what they download and install on their iPads and iPhones because of Apple's assurance that the apps are safe.
  - jsavin 15y ago
    Exactly. There's an implicit promise to Apple's sandbox and theirs and Jobs' statements about how they're protecting users from Internet scaries (including porn and other "offensive" content) has given users an incorrect impression that data on their phones is safer than data on their computer. Add to that the fact that most adults remember an era when cellphones had no connectivity, or only USB or serial connections, and its not hard to see how people missed this. Now the platform owners (Apple, Tootle, Microsoft, etc) must respond to keep the promise they've made, whether stated or implied, or eventually users will rebel. But until the response or rebellion happens, how much damage will be done? The platforms will adapt, and users will eventually upgrade or move to competitors, but it will take months or years.
nutanc 15y ago
Nice post. If an application on our computers would upload all our contact details, our bookmarks etc to their servers to make it "easy" for us, would we agree to that. Guess we are just using these apps without worrying about the security. Good that people like Dave are bringing it out to the open.
tatsuke95 15y ago
Pando Daily appears to be trying to recreate the TechCrunch of last year, rather than the TechCrunch of 3+ years ago. This is the same guy who wrote the mocking article on Ireland's startup scene. I guess he's filling the MG Siegler role. You know what would be awesome? Some solid technology journalism. The last thing we need is another conflicted, industry mouthpiece. If this is the content they're pushing, I hope it fades into oblivion.
- jerhewet 15y ago
  And, if I might be so bold: Technology != Consumer-Oriented Devices Edit (before the downvotes hammer this comment into oblivion): The subject here is "tech journalism". I don't consider puff pieces about smartphones, MP3 players, your cell carrier, or anything else related to consumer-grade products to be "tech journalism". I've pretty much stopped listening to "tech podcasts" and subscribing to "tech magazines" because of this problem. They're not delivering anything even vaguely related to technology any more. They're telling me about the latest iPhone or iPad press release, or how some cell carrier is doing something that I really could care less about. Just like I don't care about the latest digital camera, or the latest MP3 player.
  - athesis 15y ago
    Which tech magazines do you read and recommend?
    - jerhewet 15y ago
      Maximum PC. Hands down the absolute best computer tech magazine on the market. Also highly recommend "This Week In Computer Hardware" (http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-computer-hardware http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-computer-hardware) for a tech-related podcast. I've stopped listening to "Buzz Out Loud" because of its wall-to-wall smartphone coverage. And I'm about to give up on "This Week In Tech" (along with four or five other podcasts) for the same reason.
  - michael_fine 15y ago
wyclif 15y ago
Edit: needs a question mark after "editing".
laconian 15y ago
The author of the Pando article is 18 years old. He's not at the age where he has been burned by something he did when he was young and dumb. He's hard at work building a great foundation for what that moment arrives, though!
- davewiner 15y ago
  A net naive.
alexwilliams 15y ago
Pando Daily's cynicism is only matched by society's indifference to data privacy.
- newman314 15y ago
  s/cynicism/trolling/ FTFY
bigtech 15y ago
PandoDaily appears opaque about their bias to me, so I don't read it.
redthrowaway 15y ago
My open challenge to PandoDaily is to stop being utter shit. That's it. No clever attempts to trap them into defending their beliefs, just improve to the point where they in some way, shape or form resemble a credible journalism outfit.
shpoonj 15y ago
Don't download an app unless you trust the folks who made it. It's not on the company, it's on you. You are responsible for yourself and the security of your information. It's not Instapaper's job to watch your shit. Also, call a spade a spade. If you want to issue them a challenge, ask them to download the Facebook app or the Path app or any of the other infringing apps. But they already have. They have already done the thing they're being accused of being uncomfortable with. How sharing information from your iPhone with a company and publishing it online for the world to see are equivalent, I can't fathom.

127 points by davewiner 15y ago

untog 15y ago

This is a false comparison. Uploading your address book to Path is not the same as an app locally reading the contents of your clipboard and asking if you want to use that data. It's not even in the same league. And, loathe though I am to defend PandoDaily, the OP misses the point of their article. Uploading your address book to an app is different than posting it publicly because people trust Path their their data. If they didn't then the really shouldn't be using it in the first place.

davewiner 15y ago
Sorry but I think you're missing some data here. Every app on the iPhone can upload your address book, pictures and calendar data to their servers, whether or not they have anything to do with contacts. Every app. It's worth taking a look at the trivial crap we put on our iPads and iPhones thinking they're harmless, when each of them could be leaking all our private bits everywhere.
- untog 15y ago
  No, I'm aware of that. What I am saying is that uploading data to an app, no matter what that app may be, is not the same as posting it publicly. When you upload to an app, the makers of that app have access to your data. Don't get me wrong- that's a bad thing. But if you upload your data publicly, anyone in the world has access to your data. Drastically different.
  - davewiner 15y ago
    Nothing personal, but I think it's naive to assume that. I once did a deal with a software publisher that required me to turn over the source code. One day I came into the office and found a disk clearly labeled as the source for my product, on the receptionists desk. That was pretty close to public, and I remember that every time I let something sensitive out of my control. Also every few months I have to change my credit card number because a charge appears that I didn't make. Luckily the credit card companies have developed good algorithms for detecting these. Now you might assume that every company that you give your CC to is being careful not to make it public, but if you believe that, you aren't reading the news.
    - untog 15y ago
      Well, the credit card example you give is a good one- you can go through life without paying for anything by credit card, and your credit card will never be stolen. If you do pay for things by credit card, there is a chance that it will be stolen. If you post your credit card details publicly there is a 100% guarantee it will be stolen. I think the same applies to apps. There is a sensible middle ground in there somewhere, and the new permission request alerts from Apple will go a long way to helping with that. But no, never any guarantees about anything.
      - davewiner 15y ago
        But this is like someone on the subway reaches into my pocket and takes the credit card, copies the number and then publishes it in a blog post.
  - smacktoward 15y ago
    Because there's no way that your data, once uploaded to the app vendor's servers, can ever leak out. Right? No way they are running their operation on the cheap and don't have their servers secured against intrusion. No way they can be inexperienced developers and build an API that leaks information to improperly authenticated requests. No way they can have a disgruntled employee throw a torrent of it all up when he gets fired. No way they can get bought by someone with fewer scruples and hand your data over to them as part of the acquisition.
    - icarus_drowning 15y ago
      These are all perfectly valid critiques of the notion that "my data is protected by Path's privacy policy", and they are excellent reasons why Path was right to apologize and correct a genuine problem with their app's behaviour. But they aren't really relevant to the parent comment's point, which is that, even with these (potential) holes giving your address book to Path is fundamentally different than posting it publicly. In one instance, your data is public, immediately and unconditionally. In the other, there is potential for abuse that could result in your data becoming public if an arguably unlikely sequence of events were to occur. So it doesn't make any sense at all for Winer to be challenging PD to engage in a behavior that is simply not analogous to the issue at hand. All that Winer's post does is distort the issue, intentionally or not, and distract from the important debate/conversation that Path's policies initiated. I honestly don't see how that's helpful at all. [UPDATED: Minor correct for clearer syntax]
smacktoward 15y ago
> Uploading your address book to an app is different than posting it publicly because people trust Path their their data. Are you sure about this? Has every Path user really reviewed Path's data security policies and deemed them satisfactory? Do Path users even have access to that information? And if they did, would most of them be in any position to evaluate it knowledgeably? Or isn't it more likely that they trust Path because they don't know the full scope of what Path has access to? Blind trust is easier to extend to someone the less information you're trusting them with, after all.
- drumdance 15y ago
  I didn't read all the disclosure documents on my mortgage, but I bought the house anyway. I'm not saying Path is right for what they did, but neither do I think it's the same as publishing everything where identity thieves can get at it. Such black & white thinking is of little use in creating policy.
  - charlesarthur 15y ago
    "I didn't read all the disclosure documents on my mortgage, but I bought the house anyway." You should have read them. All those people who got stung by Adjustable Rate Mortgages? Didn't read the terms either. Now imagine that an app has terms that are a bit like Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
- moadeel 15y ago
  Yes, I think it is quite a clear statement. Uploading to an app is not the same as posting it publicly. Other points that you are mentioning have more to do with user's willingness to take privacy seriously. Most don't take it seriously because a) it's tedious and time-consuming b) they probably don't understand it c) it is easier to trust the company like everyone else and get onto using the app and 4) ... as long as it does not include criminal, financial, health or their telephone records, everything is pretty much a go go for a user. Users don't care about their privacy unless it has elements of the 4 categories stated above. Users hate hassle and they have pretty much resigned from the fight for privacy mainly because they have found that the benefit of sharing things with others outweighs the willingness to be clear of a trouble that rarely every shows up in their conscience anyway .... think about it ... when was the last time a major security breach occurred that compromised so many millions and devastated so many thousands that it has left a blip or a bad mark on users conscience. We maybe very techi ... but average users are far more occupied with other concerns. So blind trust plays a strong role for them.
rickmb 15y ago
It's different in that having your address book uploaded without your permission is actually being the victim a crime in most countries. At least posting it publicly is a voluntary act. Putting yourself in a situation where you are very likely to get mugged would be better comparison. Winer is being mild in his challenge. So yeah, I agree it's not in the same league, but not in the way you mean.
rsanders 15y ago
I trust Path with some of my data -- most of it generally created for the specific use within Path.

xpose2000 15y ago

To put it another way: If your address book data was stolen and made public because of poor practices by one of your apps, you'd be pretty upset right? PandoDaily mocking that type of situation is somewhat alarming. However, if PandoDaily doesn't care about that type of scenario then go ahead and publish their address books. Otherwise, it's no laughing matter. Edit: I agree with Dave's point. They wouldn't share it because no one wants this to happen. Therefore they shouldn't be mocking something that is fairly serious.

davewiner 15y ago
Thank you. That was the point of the challenge.

kmfrk 15y ago

Here is another great article about the credibility issues the Silicon Valley industry has because of its conflict of interest: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120222,0,704588.column http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120222,0,704....

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

moadeel 15y ago

This is apples to oranges. Most users, use applications because they find about it from trusted sources. They are more interested in just using the application and moving on. Users have shown time and again that as long as the source is trusted (friends, media, overhyping blogs) then they leave it up to the company to make sure their data is private. Calling to a challenge of posting everything to public is misstating what users actually provide: a permission to take their data and keep it private versus here is my data for the rest of the world to see. There is a social contract between the user and the company that is bound by the trust that "my info will not be leaked" and looking at the history of the web I think the companies backed by competent teams take this contract very seriously.

ruswick 15y ago
Exactly. This 'challenge' has absolutely nothin to do with what PandoDaily is talking about. There's a huge difference between giving your information to a trusted company versus just throwing it out in public.
rickmb 15y ago
In what bizarro world do consumers trust companies that steal their private data without permission? Companies I trust don't break the law and violate my privacy. Contract, especially unwritten "social" contracts don't override the law.
- moadeel 15y ago
  Theoretically speaking, in every conceivable world, would the users not trust the companies who steal their data. However, practically speaking, users trust the companies who "steal" their data so long as that data is not publicized/leaked. In fact, I would argue as much that most users know that there is information being collected of them that they are not aware of, and they have accepted it because they haven't seen huge negative consequences in their personal life or in the media that make them worried of the collection of their information. In my opinion, it would have to take a data breach of the likes of katrina, tsunami 2004 and BP oil spill all within a few weeks for users to get hammered with the point that they should be more concerned about what is happening with their data. Having said that, there will always be a small group who would be up in arms about the simple act of stealing whether a negative consequence follows or not. And kudos to them for they are doing a service to us all by keeping an eye on these companies. The point that I am trying to get across is that the history of the web along with the time consuming nature of reading huge agreements has led to users entering into social contracts of trust with these companies. They could care less about how much you try to alert them. Companies can continue to take one action after another to alert the users of all that the things company will do and the user will merely see that has an obstacle to get to the app and therefore will simply accept/agree robotically and move on. Why? Users behave in herd mentality, respond to only the most imminent of threats or fear of extremely dire potential consequences. If they see everyone else doing something they will do it too, even if that means you get them to agree to very stiff contracts. They will simply accept it as a way of life and move on. When creating privacy policies, companies play this balancing act. What to constantly alert a user about, how many of them will actually care, we as a company know that all their data will be protected and not used criminally anyway? Whatever path, facebook, twitter and others do with our data is irrelevant to most users so long as most of their trusted circles are doing it too. It just isn't a big issue for them as they maneuver around other pressing issues in their lives. Kudos to those few who have made it a big issue and have kept these companies at their toes. Their effort is worth commending and appreciating, and not mocking as has been done by others.

michaelmior 15y ago

I think the point of the PandoDaily post was that you're already trusting apps with access to your data. You've granted permission for the app to access it any time. When I grant permissions for an app to access by data, this doesn't mean I am allowing my data to be published for the world to see. That's what privacy policies are for.

jimbobimbo 15y ago
...and Dave response's point is that there's no way to guarantee the privacy policy is obeyed, unless it is enforced one way or another. User expectations with regards to the private data were supposed to be guarded by App Store approval process and Apple's iOS access restrictions, however this and now photos somehow slipped through. Pando's mocking of the situation with clipboard example is off the mark. User's expectations from the clipboard is to actually share data (between the applications). Yes, there's a chance that app will publish the contents of your clipboard, but I don't think many users will store sensitive data in the clipboard anyway. In other words - vulnerability of the clipboard is an acceptable trade-off, however accessibility of contacts, photos, other private data is really not.
- michaelmior 15y ago
  Privacy policies can rarely if ever be enforced or guaranteed. This isn't something new. I can't think of many cases where a third party guarantees adherence to privacy policies. Ultimately if you give someone access to your data, you have to trust that they treat that data appropriately.

byrneseyeview 15y ago

"When you said X, you probably meant Y. But I bet you don't believe Y, thus you were lying about X." How many pointless arguments take this form? He should articulate why he considers the situations comparable, so the Pando people have something to disagree with.

davewiner 15y ago
This is a little abstract for me, so I'm not sure I understand the objection. Their point is that we are being silly for caring where our personal data goes. If we're being silly, here's an easy way to prove it. Show us how careless you are with your own personal data. If there's a limit, something you won't do to show how casual you are about it, then we found something that we agree on. My belief is they haven't thought it through, and are just being cute for the sake of being cute, about something that is very serious. Actually trying to help them find a good place. Because where they are now, is not good. Of course imho and ymmv.
- pbreit 15y ago
  The article referenced an app accessing the clipboard (x) and your challenge involved uploading all of one's contact information and pictures (y).
  - davewiner 15y ago
    You missed the bigger story that they were making light of.
    - pbreit 15y ago
      I didn't miss it.
- larrys 15y ago
  "My belief is they haven't thought it through, and are just being cute for the sake of being cute" What I find scary sometimes is if you make challenges like you did to Pando you are assuming they even have the same sense of care and responsibility about their data as you or an average person would. This reminds me of someone who runs an amusement ride and says "I let my kids ride that ride" as if that is to imply ultimate safety. It doesn't. To wit: There was a story or two recently about parents who let their teenage daughters sail around the world solo. I don't think most parents would do that.

AznHisoka 15y ago

Nice try. No Pagerank for you!

cheald 15y ago
....do...you even know who Dave Winer is?
- AznHisoka 15y ago
  why does that matter? I'm judging the content of the article, and it's just accusing another blog of something, just drama.. no valuable content here. just pointless, trivial drama looking for an ego boost.
  - cheald 15y ago
    Hint: scripting.com has a better pagerank than PandoDaily. He's the guy who practically invented blogging.
    - AznHisoka 15y ago
      again, that doesn't matter. Even after knowing who he is now, trivial content is still trivial content. And he might've invented something, but blogging most definitely isn't it. Blogging was going to be come about inevitably once someone invented the internet - that was the hard part. Blogging is just an extension of people expressing themselves.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - hking329 15y ago
        Please, please. Why go there? You've got this thread where you could be having a discussion on an interesting and important topic, but you're wanting to fork it into a personal attack over something that's irrelevant to the topic and that has been discussed ad ad nauseum on tens of thousands of other such threads.

bsimpson 15y ago

The whole point of the PD article was that you trust developers to not do these things because market forces keep them in check. If an app was abusing your privacy, it would be revoked by the marketplace (Apple, Google, BN, or Amazon) and its developer's reputation would be tarnished. Of course, maintaining a database of sensitive information is rife with risk, and it's completely fair for journalists to point that out. However, Path, Hipster, Instagram, etc. have no intention of leaking your data. An article reminding us to give developers the benefit-of-the-doubt in these cases is not even remotely the same thing as an article defending leaking personal data. It's therefore disingenuous of the author to suggest that reminding people to be civil in the ways they react to these situations implies that we should all be comfortable publicly posting our personal rolodexes. Someone else's contact information is not your IP to divulge; however, that doesn't mean we need to start a witch-hunt about it.

davewiner 15y ago
There are hundreds of thousands of apps. Not all of them have reps that can be tarnished.

falling 15y ago

So, since every single application in your computer can access all of the same data and do whatever they please, has had that ability since forever and we see that as an advantage (see problems with adding sandboxing on the Mac), why are we so concerned about it on our phones and completely ignore the issues otherwise? The only reason I could come up with is that on the phone we have apps that actually use that data, social networks of various fashions, while on our computers we mostly use apps to do stuff and social networks stay in the browser. Should we be asking OS vendors to add those checks to our computers too?

davewiner 15y ago
People are much less careful with what they download and install on their iPads and iPhones because of Apple's assurance that the apps are safe.
- jsavin 15y ago
  Exactly. There's an implicit promise to Apple's sandbox and theirs and Jobs' statements about how they're protecting users from Internet scaries (including porn and other "offensive" content) has given users an incorrect impression that data on their phones is safer than data on their computer. Add to that the fact that most adults remember an era when cellphones had no connectivity, or only USB or serial connections, and its not hard to see how people missed this. Now the platform owners (Apple, Tootle, Microsoft, etc) must respond to keep the promise they've made, whether stated or implied, or eventually users will rebel. But until the response or rebellion happens, how much damage will be done? The platforms will adapt, and users will eventually upgrade or move to competitors, but it will take months or years.

nutanc 15y ago

Nice post. If an application on our computers would upload all our contact details, our bookmarks etc to their servers to make it "easy" for us, would we agree to that. Guess we are just using these apps without worrying about the security. Good that people like Dave are bringing it out to the open.

tatsuke95 15y ago

Pando Daily appears to be trying to recreate the TechCrunch of last year, rather than the TechCrunch of 3+ years ago. This is the same guy who wrote the mocking article on Ireland's startup scene. I guess he's filling the MG Siegler role. You know what would be awesome? Some solid technology journalism. The last thing we need is another conflicted, industry mouthpiece. If this is the content they're pushing, I hope it fades into oblivion.

jerhewet 15y ago
And, if I might be so bold: Technology != Consumer-Oriented Devices Edit (before the downvotes hammer this comment into oblivion): The subject here is "tech journalism". I don't consider puff pieces about smartphones, MP3 players, your cell carrier, or anything else related to consumer-grade products to be "tech journalism". I've pretty much stopped listening to "tech podcasts" and subscribing to "tech magazines" because of this problem. They're not delivering anything even vaguely related to technology any more. They're telling me about the latest iPhone or iPad press release, or how some cell carrier is doing something that I really could care less about. Just like I don't care about the latest digital camera, or the latest MP3 player.
- athesis 15y ago
  Which tech magazines do you read and recommend?
  - jerhewet 15y ago
    Maximum PC. Hands down the absolute best computer tech magazine on the market. Also highly recommend "This Week In Computer Hardware" (http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-computer-hardware http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-computer-hardware) for a tech-related podcast. I've stopped listening to "Buzz Out Loud" because of its wall-to-wall smartphone coverage. And I'm about to give up on "This Week In Tech" (along with four or five other podcasts) for the same reason.
- michael_fine 15y ago

wyclif 15y ago

Edit: needs a question mark after "editing".

laconian 15y ago

The author of the Pando article is 18 years old. He's not at the age where he has been burned by something he did when he was young and dumb. He's hard at work building a great foundation for what that moment arrives, though!

davewiner 15y ago
A net naive.

alexwilliams 15y ago

Pando Daily's cynicism is only matched by society's indifference to data privacy.

newman314 15y ago
s/cynicism/trolling/ FTFY

bigtech 15y ago

PandoDaily appears opaque about their bias to me, so I don't read it.

redthrowaway 15y ago

My open challenge to PandoDaily is to stop being utter shit. That's it. No clever attempts to trap them into defending their beliefs, just improve to the point where they in some way, shape or form resemble a credible journalism outfit.

shpoonj 15y ago

Don't download an app unless you trust the folks who made it. It's not on the company, it's on you. You are responsible for yourself and the security of your information. It's not Instapaper's job to watch your shit. Also, call a spade a spade. If you want to issue them a challenge, ask them to download the Facebook app or the Path app or any of the other infringing apps. But they already have. They have already done the thing they're being accused of being uncomfortable with. How sharing information from your iPhone with a company and publishing it online for the world to see are equivalent, I can't fathom.