Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Creepy?

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Creepy?

#11

Post by [deleted] »

gloob wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your point is? Nobody is entitled to comment on someone else's site. "Lack of comments" is simply a bullshit criticism.

No-one is entitled to have a window manager on Linux either, but I'd probably still be using a Mac if there weren't any. The OP of this thread is not, to my understanding, making a moral claim about how Gruber should or shouldn't have comments - he's saying that the inability to comment, combined with Gruber's factual inaccuracies, frustrates him sufficiently that he no longer pays much attention to the blog. Is he a…

[deleted]

Re: Creepy?

#12

Post by tptacek »

cageface wrote: post #8
gaulinmp wrote: post #2

I can't read Gruber's posts anymore. The inability to respond to his specious claims is infuriating. For example in this post, the policy does not explicitly state the ability to opt out. Also he ignores the studies showing that with large enough data sets, individuals can be identified by their behavioral patterns, nullifying Apple's claim to the contrary. Gruber constantly passes off pejorative arguments as cogent…

It's fitting though, that someone as uncritically admiring of Apple and its culture of control and secrecy would take this approach with his own blog. I don't click on DF links anymore. His tap-dancing apologia are predictable and tiresome and disingenuous and I don't use Apple stuff anymore so I don't need his take on the iFoo of the moment.

See? Look at the meme spread. It's like a political talking point. Some Frank Luntz somewhere started this idea that an easy way to write off a commentator you don't like is to remark about his lack of blog comments, and off we are to the races.

Re: Creepy?

#13

Post by chc »

garret wrote: post #10
gloob wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one is entitled to have a window manager on Linux either, but I'd probably still be using a Mac if there weren't any. The OP of this thread is not, to my understanding, making a moral claim about how Gruber should or shouldn't have comments - he's saying that the inability to comment, combined with Gruber's factual inaccuracies, frustrates him sufficiently that he no longer pays much attention to the blog. Is he a…

he no longer pays much attention to the blog He pays attention enough to start comment threads about it.

That requires almost no attention at all. IIRC, that's a large part of the reason why John doesn't want comments on his blog.

Re: Creepy?

#14

Post by aresant »

Since the early days of iPhone you could collect near real-time location data on individual users by having your app ping location once they give basic location permission.

Seems like this privacy policy is a clarification on an existing process, and maybe necessary since the advent of new background services make is easier to collect in real time?

Re: Creepy?

#15

Post by gloob »

garret wrote: post #10
gloob wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one is entitled to have a window manager on Linux either, but I'd probably still be using a Mac if there weren't any. The OP of this thread is not, to my understanding, making a moral claim about how Gruber should or shouldn't have comments - he's saying that the inability to comment, combined with Gruber's factual inaccuracies, frustrates him sufficiently that he no longer pays much attention to the blog. Is he a…

he no longer pays much attention to the blog He pays attention enough to start comment threads about it.

You'll have to take that up with him; I'm afraid that my insight into the minds of complete strangers is rather circumscribed.

Re: Creepy?

#16

Post by chc »

aresant wrote: post #14

Since the early days of iPhone you could collect near real-time location data on individual users by having your app ping location once they give basic location permission. Seems like this privacy policy is a clarification on an existing process, and maybe necessary since the advent of new background services make is easier to collect in real time?

That's precisely what Gruber is saying, and though I initially read that portion of the TOS with the "creepy" interpretation where Apple will track you constantly for some nefarious iAds-related purpose, I now think your reading is probably right.

Re: Creepy?

#17

Post by junkbit »

tptacek wrote: post #12
cageface wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fitting though, that someone as uncritically admiring of Apple and its culture of control and secrecy would take this approach with his own blog. I don't click on DF links anymore. His tap-dancing apologia are predictable and tiresome and disingenuous and I don't use Apple stuff anymore so I don't need his take on the iFoo of the moment.

See? Look at the meme spread. It's like a political talking point. Some Frank Luntz somewhere started this idea that an easy way to write off a commentator you don't like is to remark about his lack of blog comments, and off we are to the races.

It's quite fitting. John Gruber is the Fox and Friends of the tech industry.

Re: Creepy?

#18

Post by nitrogen »

tptacek wrote: post #7
pixelbath wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He is willing to interject his own responses, but unwilling to entertain comments to his own posts. Aside from that, your phone (whether you opt-out or not) being able to update its manufacturer (not your carrier) on your whereabouts at any given time IS creepy. Apple asks now, and Steve Jobs says that Apple asks now, but is it illegal for them to change that policy? The only thing forcing them to include an…

In the future, Apple could install a small packet of poisonous gas that would be triggered on the first received phone call 10 hours after jailbreaking the device. I mean, they haven't, but they could do that . And that is creepy.

The financial benefit associated with iAds and location awareness provide an incentive. Where's the incentive to poison jailbreakers? One is significantly more plausible than the other.

Re: Creepy?

#19

Post by gaulinmp »

pohl wrote: post #4
gaulinmp wrote: post #2

I can't read Gruber's posts anymore. The inability to respond to his specious claims is infuriating. For example in this post, the policy does not explicitly state the ability to opt out. Also he ignores the studies showing that with large enough data sets, individuals can be identified by their behavioral patterns, nullifying Apple's claim to the contrary. Gruber constantly passes off pejorative arguments as cogent…

Here we are in 2010, in a world replete with democratized media, where any person with access to a computer — even without owning one — can sign up for a free email address at any number of free providers, and then sign up for a free blog service from an even more impressive array of providers, and speak their mind and refer to other such pages using the magic of Uniform Resource Locators. And, in this world, we have…

I was not claiming I want him to add comments, I was explaining why I can't stomach reading his blog. A claim which is obviously contradicted by my act of posting a comment.

Re: Creepy?

#20

Post by tptacek »

nitrogen wrote: post #18
tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the future, Apple could install a small packet of poisonous gas that would be triggered on the first received phone call 10 hours after jailbreaking the device. I mean, they haven't, but they could do that . And that is creepy.

The financial benefit associated with iAds and location awareness provide an incentive. Where's the incentive to poison jailbreakers? One is significantly more plausible than the other.

Yes! Apple is indeed responsible for disavowing ALL PLAUSIBLE threats they could be involved in! BURN THEM!
Post reply on HN