We are sorry • Hacker News Board

Re: We are sorry

#101

Post by jakubw » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

Me1000 wrote: post #91

benwerd wrote: post #47

It's not a perfect solution, but I don't understand why Path don't hash the contact details before uploading them, and check against the hashes. You can still infer all kinds of social graph information, of course, but they're at least not consuming raw contact details.

Preface: I will joining Path this Summer, but I do not speak for the company in any way, nor have I spoken with them about the situation. This is a purely technical reply... You cant guarantee a unique hash. When you hash users' data there is the possibility of collision; this probability grows with every new user. Without identifying data of some sort, it's difficult (impossible?) to get the exact user.

You could just use SHA-256. If it does collide then Path's malfunctioning will be the last of our concerns. :-)

Re: We are sorry

#102

Post by reidmain » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

The fact that you have to email Path to "revoke access" is still unacceptable.

This information should never be stored on Path's servers. Best case scenario they should be storing hashes of information and before people say there can be collisions so what? The number of people who would be presented with a friend that they don't know will so minuscule versus the number of people whose personal information is stored in plaintext in a database somewhere.

The idea that when someone signs up for Path and is instantly recommended to friend someone else because that person shared their personal information is scary.

Making this opt-in gives people the illusion of control when one of their tech illiterate friends who always clicks accept has already given out all of this information.

Re: We are sorry

#103

Post by sheldor » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 9:57 PM UTC

A sincere apology always adds value to this world. And I guess, it's sincere, even if there are flaws in it here and there. Just my perception ...

Re: We are sorry

#104

Post by moizsyed » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 9:59 PM UTC

I'm glad they decided to nuke the data, but can you really trust them again? This only happened because someone was hacking a project and ended up tracing what Path is doing to his address book and then blogged about it, getting enough attention and momentum to end up forcing Path to take this action.

But can you really trust a company like this in the future?

I think Dave Winer is right. One should treat others data as one would like others to treat their data.

http://scripting.com/stories/2012/02/08/gladIDontUsePath.htm...

Re: We are sorry

#105

Post by drivebyacct2 » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:01 PM UTC

jsavimbi wrote: post #37

Note to PR dicks: never include a mission statement in an apology if that very mission statement is the reason you were hired to write an apology. Note to app builders: never hire a PR firm to do your dirty work.

I have to say, of all the comments here (and the large volume of downvoted ones), I don't see the problem wiht jsavimbi's comment. It does seem very strange to say "We are all about user choice and privacy" while apologizing for violating that credo.

Re: We are sorry

#106

Post by jwegan » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

Me1000 wrote: post #91

benwerd wrote: post #47

It's not a perfect solution, but I don't understand why Path don't hash the contact details before uploading them, and check against the hashes. You can still infer all kinds of social graph information, of course, but they're at least not consuming raw contact details.

Preface: I will joining Path this Summer, but I do not speak for the company in any way, nor have I spoken with them about the situation. This is a purely technical reply... You cant guarantee a unique hash. When you hash users' data there is the possibility of collision; this probability grows with every new user. Without identifying data of some sort, it's difficult (impossible?) to get the exact user.

That is incorrect. SHA1 still has no known collisions despite years of research and computing power dedicated to finding just one collision.

Edit: Furthermore since the set of valid emails and phone numbers is a very restricted set of input, it is extremely likely that there are literally no two valid email/phone numbers that SHA1 hash to the same value.

Re: We are sorry

#107

Post by reidmain » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #17

It's a step in the right direction, but doesn't clear up all of the confusion. I can't update to 2.0.6 (it's not an option on my device, a 4th gen iPod touch running 2.0.5). In addition, how will adding friends work going forward -- Facebook Connect, or manual searches by name? Will hashing be implemented?

They said everything will work exactly like before if you opt-in. So the second you click "accept" they have your entire address book until you email them and say please delete it.

This is smoke and mirrors and makes it sound like they've done a good deed.

Re: We are sorry

#108

Post by ellie42 » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:03 PM UTC

54mf wrote: post #13

dsr_ wrote: post #4

Surprise: an actual apology, followed by an explanation and how they're going to do it slightly better in future, plus a remedy of sorts. Better than ATT, VZW, MS, TW, Comcast, or any national US bank.

The fact that they've already deleted all user address book data, and have an updated version of the app available today with a privacy option, is a big deal. I don't know how they managed to get an update to the app approved so quickly (24-48 hours?), they must have worked directly with Apple. A good sign, either way.

There is no proof of that they really deleted all user address book data.

Re: We are sorry

#109

Post by tdrgabi » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

How do you know they did delete the data?

Do you honestly believe they are sorry and they deleted your data just because they said so?

I personally doubt it. It's valuable for the company and it would be foolish (from their perspective) to delete it. Somebody has to write & test code, to make sure that the code uploads all your contacts.

I find it hard to believe that you have access to all the data, see what is coming in, and then discover, when you're caught that "ups, we did a mistake". Our implementation sucked.

Re: We are sorry

#110

Post by Alind » Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

"we’ve deleted the entire collection of user uploaded contact information from our servers. " -- I doubt it based on how he define "delete".