Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#231

Post by jsprogrammer » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

dlandis wrote: post #126

jsprogrammer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the Gmail TOS used to state that one person could only have one personal account. That has either changed, or I am misremembering.

I think you're misremembering. In fact they make it very easy to have multiple accounts and open them all simultaneously within the same gmail tab, switch between them and manage them fairly seamlessly.

I was recalling when Gmail first introduced free storage in Beta. I believe you were only supposed to have one account so that one person couldn't gain multiple GBs of 'free' storage.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#232

Post by AnkhMorporkian » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #164

colordrops wrote: post #106

There is definitely an Uber presence on HN doing damage control.

Or some people on HN work for Uber, a near certainty given the company's size.

Or, alternatively, people (like me) who don't like a witch hunt. I have no affiliation with Uber, no affiliation with ride-sharing or taxis, have never used them, but I think the entire situation is being blown way out of proportion. Uber certainly doesn't need me jumping to their defense, but it annoys me when people read malicious intentions into something that has a perfectly reasonable non-malicious explanation.

Sure, malice does sometimes exist on these things, but most instances of this stuff in major apps turn out to be entirely benign. Ill-planned perhaps, but not malicious.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#233

Post by SquareWheel » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

vehementi wrote: post #230

SquareWheel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People sure love to throw out the shill card without providing any proof.

The fact is there are shills everywhere. It's hard to prove them in all cases. But it is a "big" and important industry for companies to anonymously and without accountability do damage control. There have been articles and AMA's etc. from people who had worked for these firms and it's really disgusting. So it's not people with tin foil hats speculating that shills might exist - we know shills exist and are pervasive…

The existence of past conspiracies does not offer proof of new ones. Likewise, the fact that shills have existed in the past does not mean they exist here and now. The burden of proof is still on the one making the claim.

It's not only irresponsible but dangerous to take a guilty until proven innocent approach. You should expect somebody to prove it if they're making a claim. That's not letting anyone "win".

Look at profiles. Look for unusual voting patterns. Is it more likely that Uber is secretly watching and manipulating a forum for hackers, or could it be that a lot of people here actually quite like Uber as a company? Occam's razor suggests the latter.

Or maybe - like me - this story just seems shaky as hell with people not understanding that Android permissions (like license agreements) often over-extend themselves. That a permission requiring X doesn't mean X is being used. All the time we see things like "App requires contacts list" where it's only grabbing the owner's info.

Honestly, playing the shill card is lazy and irrelevant. If you have proof, show it -- otherwise you're just spreading FUD.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#234

Post by mderazon » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

xorcist wrote: post #227

anowlcalledjosh wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of, but you still get the situation where an app wants to get your IMEI to identify the device, but is forced to ask for permission to 'phone', which the user promptly denies because that also allows the app to make phone calls.

What does an app want my IMEI for? How do they work on non-cellular tablets (and PCs) which doesn't have one?

Lots of apps use IMEI as a unique device identifier on Android. A practice that is discouraged by Google. Anyway, since 6.0, developers should find a different way to udid. One alternative is Advertising ID which doesn't require any special permissions but is resettable by the user (though not easily found in the system's settings)

http://developer.android.com/google/play-services/id.html

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#235

Post by nxzero » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

tshtf wrote: post #54

nxzero wrote: post #51

If you have any questions, you can write Uber at privacy@uber.com. -iOS App Permissions https://www.uber.com/legal/other/ios-permissions/ -Android App Permissions https://www.uber.com/legal/other/android-permissions/

Did you read the post? He contacted privacy@uber.com. Question: http://i.imgur.com/K1mAtiH.png Scripted reply that didn't answer question: http://i.imgur.com/m9sWJZR.png Also, as mentioned in the post, https://www.uber.com/legal/other/android-permissions/ doesn't mention the new permissions.

If I made that clear, it would be less likely others would contact Uber; appears that I should have just let it be.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#236

Post by makeramen » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

Uber engineer here. These permissions were mistakenly introduced by an engineer on the team who thought a 3rd party library needed them when in fact it does not. We definitely do not need or want those permissions and we’ve promptly released new versions to the Play Store that do not request them. Please upgrade to Uber app version 3.98.3 (3.99.2 in the beta channel) which no longer requests the extra permissions.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#237

Post by jonathankoren » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 8:05 PM UTC

bkjelden wrote: post #223

jonathankoren wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you're making a network call anyway, because that's what apps do, so the data is implicit. You simply group by user id and subtract the timestamps of the requests. But let's say for some reason, you can't collect app-open timestamps. What could you possibly want to do with it locally? Say, "Hey it's been x days since you last used me. Thanks for coming back!"? These are stats you want in aggregate, which means…

Yes, but if the data of when the app was last opened is needed to make more network calls, or to just show the user something in general, you're looking at a network call with round trip latency and a success rate <100%, vs. a device call that takes <1ms and succeeds every time.

Put the last opened time on the initial authorization response.

We could go round and round like this. Give me a concrete use case, because for the life of me I can't come up with one that isn't simply superfluous chrome.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#238

Post by spoiledtechie » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

nbb wrote: post #157

spoiledtechie wrote: post #139

Didn't Uber just admit to giving Feds their data on all their users? What's the thought on Uber having access to such data as browsing and passing that along to the feds too?

No they didn't.

Yes they did. Don't tell me know until you can learn how to Google.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#239

Post by jonathankoren » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #194

bkjelden wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why make a network call if the device can give you that information locally?

Because Uber's primary functionality depends on network calls. To me, it's pretty obvious they want to find out if you opened the Lyft app recently.

That's what I'm thinking. Who has competitors installed, and do they use them. Also, it does have the right amount of creep to be a plausible Uber tactic.

Re: Uber wants access to browsing history, bookmarks, and running apps

#240

Post by decisiveness » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

makeramen wrote: post #236

Uber engineer here. These permissions were mistakenly introduced by an engineer on the team who thought a 3rd party library needed them when in fact it does not. We definitely do not need or want those permissions and we’ve promptly released new versions to the Play Store that do not request them. Please upgrade to Uber app version 3.98.3 (3.99.2 in the beta channel) which no longer requests the extra permissions.

> These permissions were mistakenly introduced by an engineer on the team who thought a 3rd party library needed them when in fact it does not.

What caused the engineer to be mistaken about this? What library?

Considering Uber's history, expecting people to believe a claim like: "one guy acted alone in an oopsy", without providing a more detailed report, is a bit optimistic.