4 ms·

I'd argue that ven if they read the security policy they wouldn't understand it anyway. When you're surrounded by hackers it's easy to think everyone has some b

I'd argue that ven if they read the security policy they wouldn't understand it anyway. When you're surrounded by hackers it's easy to think everyone has some basic understanding of computers but in reality most people are lucky if they know how print a damn Word document. This really is a false comparison. Accessing an address book for the app's use only and accessing the address book for public publishing are so far apart it's ridiculous. Security policies don't mean anything. If data is stored digitally there will always be a way to compromise its security no matter how much encryption, SSL, etc. you use. Security, especially on the web is a total misnomer. All you can really do is make it inconvenient to access. Trusting a company isn't about their data privacy and security policies. It's about their brand to a large degree. Their track record and other peoples' experiences with the app. I'm in the camp that understands these policies and what they mean but thats not the reason I trust the company behind an app. I trust Google with my docs because they have a good track record. Facebook I trust as a necessary evil. Scratch that, I don't trust Facebook but I use it anyway because I'm banking on the odds. I think that's what it boils down to for most average folks. If the odds are that they'll have no trouble then that's a risk they're willing to take. If there's a breach of security and a bunch of people have their data exposed (but I'm not affected) well that makes me think twice not because of the breach itself but because of all the pile-on press coverage. I'm one who firmly believes that people don't make their own minds up about this stuff. The average person's view of this whole app uploading address books thing is based purely in whichever side of the manufactured debate is the loudest and seemingly most expert-y. After watching how people use the web, their computers, and their smartphones for some time now I've become really cynical when it comes to this stuff. People don't seem to care until someone writes a blog post that tells them they should care.

smacktoward 15y ago
> People don't seem to care until someone writes a blog post that tells them they should care. But that's the point, isn't it? They shouldn't have to care! People shouldn't have to be security experts to use a phone. The phone should protect them by default and make them have to jump through hoops to waive that protection, rather than the other way around.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  The phome ismt what's insecure though in this case. We're talking about the security of the servers that these apps are sending data to. For some reason people think about phones differently than any PC running whichever OS. If the app store didn't exist and we got smartphone apps the way we all used to (and to large degree still do) download PC programs I doubt anyone would be upset with Apple. All the blame would be solely on the app developers. Apple polices the app store and locks down iOS a lot as it is. If Path were a native Mac or Windows program and it was accessing data from other programs we'd all be screaming that it's some kind of spyware. We'd probably sayng that Path itself should be asking permission to access data, not the OS. But because we have the app store and have come to have this strange relationship with Apple where we bitch about how locked down the devices are but at the same time want them to protect us from apps like Path we're placing some responsibility on Apple. I don't think it's right. We need to decide if we like our locked down devices or if we want Apple to stop playing babysitter for us.
moadeel 15y ago
Amen to that. I couldn't have said it any better. I have been arguing the same thing - history of the web and these companies have been a pretty clean one.

smacktoward 15y ago

> People don't seem to care until someone writes a blog post that tells them they should care. But that's the point, isn't it? They shouldn't have to care! People shouldn't have to be security experts to use a phone. The phone should protect them by default and make them have to jump through hoops to waive that protection, rather than the other way around.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
The phome ismt what's insecure though in this case. We're talking about the security of the servers that these apps are sending data to. For some reason people think about phones differently than any PC running whichever OS. If the app store didn't exist and we got smartphone apps the way we all used to (and to large degree still do) download PC programs I doubt anyone would be upset with Apple. All the blame would be solely on the app developers. Apple polices the app store and locks down iOS a lot as it is. If Path were a native Mac or Windows program and it was accessing data from other programs we'd all be screaming that it's some kind of spyware. We'd probably sayng that Path itself should be asking permission to access data, not the OS. But because we have the app store and have come to have this strange relationship with Apple where we bitch about how locked down the devices are but at the same time want them to protect us from apps like Path we're placing some responsibility on Apple. I don't think it's right. We need to decide if we like our locked down devices or if we want Apple to stop playing babysitter for us.

moadeel 15y ago

Amen to that. I couldn't have said it any better. I have been arguing the same thing - history of the web and these companies have been a pretty clean one.