5 ms·

That's a beautiful strawman argument; let me have a tussle with it to see if it holds on its own. First, let's not miss the forest for the trees. We're engagi

by rolandog 11mo ago

That's a beautiful strawman argument; let me have a tussle with it to see if it holds on its own. First, let's not miss the forest for the trees. We're engaging in a common "hacker" watering hole. Our opsec skills are very likely not representative of what your average person has, and the point of the article is to educate the average person. Second, most of those apps require you give your pound of data upfront, or they won't work correctly until you grant permissions. Next, it's not the same if the establishment I'm buying chicken nuggets from ties down my credit card to my identity or if it does the same plus a ton of extra data that I've been forced to grant. Also, one of the main concerns from the article is surveillance pricing... So yeah, you sure "saved" a bunch ($100) over the course of 1 year at a restaurant, but overall you're worse off because some data broker managed to have all airlines raise your flight prices by $500 because they learned that you're going to have to attend your best mate's wedding. And last, but not least, the article mentioned the binding arbitration clause that one blindly signs away when accepting the app's ToS: > Walking into a restaurant to buy a cheeseburger, there’s no way a company can force you to enter a contractual agreement that includes binding arbitration. Downloading an app, however, requires agreeing to a “Terms of Service,” and those can absolutely include a binding arbitration clause, and that clause can be applied even to cases outside the app. This happened to Jeffrey Piccolo when his wife died of food poisoning in a Disney World. Disney made a motion to dismiss because a couple years back, Jeffrey had signed up for a free trial of Disney+, which included a binding arbitration clause, which meant that if Jeffrey wanted to complain about how Disney murdered his wife, they’d have to settle it out of court with a mediator that Disney hired. No jury, no judge, no oversight. [...] I have no words to describe how depraved that is.

raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
> Second, most of those apps require you give your pound of data upfront, or they won't work correctly until you grant permissions. I can’t think of a single iOS app I’ve installed in over 15 years that forced me to give it unnecessary permissions for it to work
- rolandog 11mo ago
  Well, consider me impressed; perhaps I should consider switching away from Android... the only thing keeping me from doing so is Apple's walled garden... the hefty price tags don't help, too. For my part, I can tell you that Samsung's "Galaxy Buds Pro" app (IIRC) for a while there didn't allow me to customize some settings if I didn't grant calendar or contact permissions... I tested today and that didn't happen (it was probably a bug... though I remember it being present for a LOT of time; enough that I stopped trying to open the app). My workaround consisted in using the widget to toggle noise-cancellation modes.
  - rolandog 11mo ago
    I should note that, instead of "customize settings" should read as "interact with the app" (as in permission prompt pop-up preventing interaction with main app).
crazygringo 11mo ago
It's not a strawman, please don't be insulting. But OK, let's tussle: > most of those apps require you give your pound of data upfront, or they won't work correctly until you grant permissions. That's false. I've never seen an app that required any permissions data upfront, except sometimes my location data while using the app if I wanted to be able to find the nearest restaurant. > plus a ton of extra data that I've been forced to grant. Again, there's no extra data. E.g. when I install the McDonald's app, it's not asking for my contacts or my photos or anything like that. This is not common practice among any major brands I've ever seen. > but overall you're worse off because some data broker managed to have all airlines raise your flight prices by $500 That's not a thing. And it's really easy to check prices anonymously. As for arbitration, sure check the ToS. The Disney case is the famous one and it's the only one I've heard of, but that was for a paid streaming service, not even an app. Arbitration is a separate problem to do with ToS's... and most of these apps don't even have ToS's you have to scroll through and accept, because that causes friction. So it seems like a different conversation.
- rolandog 11mo ago
  Sorry if I came off as insulting; I admit I thought your original arguments were too bad-faith to not have been made by a bot or a foreign state actor. So... We clearly have experienced different things (or rather, the author and I have experienced similar things, and you haven't), and therefore we have very different views on the matter... You don't have to believe me; I just wouldn't be so dismissive about people sounding off alerts and alarms about increasive abusive and invasive practices, as I've seen different levels of inaccessibility becoming normalized (e.g. you can't access some Spanish governmental services unless you have an Android or Apple phone). Also, it's surprising to me that — if you're posting in this place — you wouldn't at least be aware of the possibility that ... companies are liars and can abuse or circumvent permissions [0] (e.g. everyone is spying on your clipboard). So, are you really sure that regular popular apps are on the up and up and only taking what is needed to offer a service, or could they be doing something else and not have your best interest at hand? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634687
  - 11mo ago

raw_anon_1111 11mo ago

> Second, most of those apps require you give your pound of data upfront, or they won't work correctly until you grant permissions. I can’t think of a single iOS app I’ve installed in over 15 years that forced me to give it unnecessary permissions for it to work

rolandog 11mo ago
Well, consider me impressed; perhaps I should consider switching away from Android... the only thing keeping me from doing so is Apple's walled garden... the hefty price tags don't help, too. For my part, I can tell you that Samsung's "Galaxy Buds Pro" app (IIRC) for a while there didn't allow me to customize some settings if I didn't grant calendar or contact permissions... I tested today and that didn't happen (it was probably a bug... though I remember it being present for a LOT of time; enough that I stopped trying to open the app). My workaround consisted in using the widget to toggle noise-cancellation modes.
- rolandog 11mo ago
  I should note that, instead of "customize settings" should read as "interact with the app" (as in permission prompt pop-up preventing interaction with main app).

crazygringo 11mo ago

It's not a strawman, please don't be insulting. But OK, let's tussle: > most of those apps require you give your pound of data upfront, or they won't work correctly until you grant permissions. That's false. I've never seen an app that required any permissions data upfront, except sometimes my location data while using the app if I wanted to be able to find the nearest restaurant. > plus a ton of extra data that I've been forced to grant. Again, there's no extra data. E.g. when I install the McDonald's app, it's not asking for my contacts or my photos or anything like that. This is not common practice among any major brands I've ever seen. > but overall you're worse off because some data broker managed to have all airlines raise your flight prices by $500 That's not a thing. And it's really easy to check prices anonymously. As for arbitration, sure check the ToS. The Disney case is the famous one and it's the only one I've heard of, but that was for a paid streaming service, not even an app. Arbitration is a separate problem to do with ToS's... and most of these apps don't even have ToS's you have to scroll through and accept, because that causes friction. So it seems like a different conversation.

rolandog 11mo ago
Sorry if I came off as insulting; I admit I thought your original arguments were too bad-faith to not have been made by a bot or a foreign state actor. So... We clearly have experienced different things (or rather, the author and I have experienced similar things, and you haven't), and therefore we have very different views on the matter... You don't have to believe me; I just wouldn't be so dismissive about people sounding off alerts and alarms about increasive abusive and invasive practices, as I've seen different levels of inaccessibility becoming normalized (e.g. you can't access some Spanish governmental services unless you have an Android or Apple phone). Also, it's surprising to me that — if you're posting in this place — you wouldn't at least be aware of the possibility that ... companies are liars and can abuse or circumvent permissions [0] (e.g. everyone is spying on your clipboard). So, are you really sure that regular popular apps are on the up and up and only taking what is needed to offer a service, or could they be doing something else and not have your best interest at hand? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634687
- 11mo ago