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

Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

branded3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#81

Post by eksith »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

  >Does Path actually say "We're going to invite all your friends via SMS", even in fine print?
Should it? More importantly, will anyone download the app in the first place if it did?

No one -- in their right minds -- would suddenly want to share (non-existent) photos with all their contacts. Seems like an odd way to say "We're going to invite all your friends via SMS". Your address book doesn't consist primarily of your Twitter followers. It doesn't matter if they intended it to be a feature; someone at the company should have raised a Big Red Flag and made any such SMS feature explicitly opt-in-only. With a big fonts, high-contrast colors, dancing bananas or whatever else you can use to grab attention to that fact.

This is an order of magnitude beyond sleazy.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#82

Post by shocks »

sandaru1 wrote: post #74
Me1000 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

Android doesn't ask for user's permission before accessing the address book, is it?

When you install an Android app it lists the permissions you grant the app by continuing with the install. Contact access is one of these permissions.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#83

Post by gtaylor »

sandaru1 wrote: post #74
Me1000 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

Android doesn't ask for user's permission before accessing the address book, is it?

Android shows the permissions each app is requesting before you install, and even lets you know if they change their permissions between updates. While what Path did is crappy, they didn't subvert the Android permissions system.

The thing that burnt the poster is that while a social app asking for access to their contacts might not rise a brow, the user has no way to know what they are going to do with that data without looking at the reviews or around the internet for complaints/testimonials.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#85

Post by wlesieutre »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

Path's settlement with the FTC for the last address book incident was that they create a privacy program and get independent privacy audits every other year for the next 20 years.

I don't know what the details are on those audits, but if these texts were sent without consent it seems like the kind of misuse of personal information that they would be concerned about.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#86

Post by evan_ »

forgingahead wrote: post #4
evan_ wrote: post #2

The weirdest part of this is that it apparently made voice calls to landlines? Why would they do that, it makes no sense. Unless maybe that's what the phone company does if you text a landline? Never tried it but I would be surprised...

If you send a text to a landline, a lot of providers will convert it to a phone call using some sort of text-to-speech API. I've done this by accident on older cell phones when I'd add someone's landline to a text message instead of their mobile number. This sounds like a nightmare scenario though for this poor chap and his family (and his dentist).

Well that shows you how long it's been since I've had a landline- Thanks all.

(Do they charge you 15¢ for the privilege? Can you reply?)

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#87

Post by blaabjerg »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service.

That's not true, is it? According to the FTC[1], they were fined for "collecting personal information from their mobile device address books without their knowledge and consent."

2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somewhere along the way, the user knowingly gave Path access to their contacts.

Giving them permission to read the address book (which might be useful and perfectly legitimate) and giving them permission to send everyone in that address book spam is two very different things.

[1] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/02/path.shtm

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#88

Post by ajg1977 »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

There's a big difference between "X would like to access your contacts" and "X would like to access your contacts, then store everything on their servers for reasons/duration of their determination"

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#89

Post by silencio »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

Me1000, I love you, but...

> The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somewhere along the way, the user knowingly gave Path access to their contacts.

The introduction of address book privacy in iOS was in large part prompted by the publication of Path's behavior. Up until the Path and eventually iOS update after the controversy first arose, Path didn't explicitly ask the user for access to their address book.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/15/iphone-address-book-issue...

> Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service.

Path was fined for the 12 year old signup thing specifically, but they were still charged with privacy violations regarding the address book kerfuffle.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/02/path.shtm

Post reply on HN