I think their security rating system is more than a bit wrong. They rank badness using star ratings, which imply to users that anything above 1-star is still a

I think their security rating system is more than a bit wrong. They rank badness using star ratings, which imply to users that anything above 1-star is still acceptable (you'd still see a 3-star movie or eat at a restaurant with a 3-star rating on Yelp, right?). And in their view, a 1-star rating is something that will physically damage the device. http://support.verizonwireless.com/information/app_ranking/criteria.html#security http://support.verizonwireless.com/information/app_ranking/c... A 4-star rating seems to me like describing an app that gathers analytics without a stated privacy policy. The offenses necessary to earn a 3-star rating in their book look like things which should be absolutely, positively, dealbreakers, but by using a star rating it communicates to users "hey it's acceptable but not as bad as it could be." Battery life and data usage are things that can clearly be ranked on a continuum, and those are things where users can accept tradeoffs if it means playing a fun game or streaming content. But for security, bad is bad. They really need to ditch the star rating and use a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" system, where any security transgression leads to a thumbs-down.