11–20 of 120 posts
They stored the master key to their entire data store in a publicly distributed app? > ...we have been taking steps to enhance our data security measures. Sharing details of security measures could only serve to potentially compromise those efforts. Maybe they used ROT13 on the API key twice this time!
I see no reason to praise the hacker. He destroyed a legitimate company's private data for no purpose other than his flawed moral reasoning. The company provides a way for parents to monitor their children and other legitimate business practices. Obviously, the software can be used for nefarious purposes but so can almost any other software. U.S. representatives and senators try to ban encryption using the same exact…
I see no reason to praise the hacker. He destroyed a legitimate company's private data for no purpose other than his flawed moral reasoning. The company provides a way for parents to monitor their children and other legitimate business practices. Obviously, the software can be used for nefarious purposes but so can almost any other software. U.S. representatives and senators try to ban encryption using the same exact…
You do wonder what the 24-hour panopticon does to adolescents' mental health and to the health of the parent-child relationship.
How is this even possible that a 3rd party application can intercept all text messages, call history, and photos and still get published to the Android Play Store? Ins't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps?
Isn't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps? The real question is: who gets to say in what someone's phone is going to be doing: the programmer, the manufacturer or the phone's owner. Most everyone would agree that the owner should have a word in it, and that the manufacturer should have no say at all. Germany takes another approach: no one gets to do surveillance outside strict limits, privacy is highly regarded…
How is this even possible that a 3rd party application can intercept all text messages, call history, and photos and still get published to the Android Play Store? Ins't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps?
Also, I've never had to have a discussion with any "reviewer" about my app on Android. For iOS, I've always had to do quite a few back and forth interactions with the "Resolution Center".
Android seems to be a pass through, perhaps after some automated checks are passing.
As mentioned by others, you don't necessarily have to publish to the Play Store: apps can be side-loaded on Android.
How is this even possible that a 3rd party application can intercept all text messages, call history, and photos and still get published to the Android Play Store? Ins't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps?
I always dread the thought of people not understanding these permissions and letting apps have all kinds of permissions — access to all text messsages, privilege to send text messages, access to call history and privilege to make calls. Many apps read the text messages to process one time passwords/codes sent as text messages, thus avoiding the user having to enter them manually.
These privileges have never been available in iOS for third party apps, and I appreciate Apple deciding to err on this side of the privacy equation (though Apple could still do a lot more on app permissions). Taking the same example as above, iOS apps that need one time passwords/codes depend on the user to enter them manually.
How is this even possible that a 3rd party application can intercept all text messages, call history, and photos and still get published to the Android Play Store? Ins't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps?
How is this even possible that a 3rd party application can intercept all text messages, call history, and photos and still get published to the Android Play Store? Ins't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps?
Isn't Google supposed to be reviewing the apps? The real question is: who gets to say in what someone's phone is going to be doing: the programmer, the manufacturer or the phone's owner. Most everyone would agree that the owner should have a word in it, and that the manufacturer should have no say at all. Germany takes another approach: no one gets to do surveillance outside strict limits, privacy is highly regarded…
I see no reason to praise the hacker. He destroyed a legitimate company's private data for no purpose other than his flawed moral reasoning. The company provides a way for parents to monitor their children and other legitimate business practices. Obviously, the software can be used for nefarious purposes but so can almost any other software. U.S. representatives and senators try to ban encryption using the same exact…
I see no reason to praise the hacker. He destroyed a legitimate company's private data for no purpose other than his flawed moral reasoning. The company provides a way for parents to monitor their children and other legitimate business practices. Obviously, the software can be used for nefarious purposes but so can almost any other software. U.S. representatives and senators try to ban encryption using the same exact…
While parents make a lot of decisions for children in their best interests, this certainly wasn't one of them. The fact that children might later suffer for no fault of theirs and live with something for life because of such a company makes me a lot more angry. It's becoming far too easy to push people into such a situation now.