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

111–120 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#111

Post by ColinCochrane »

pkulak wrote: post #48
zalzane wrote: post #18

Why is it even possible for this to happen? Did someone really think it was a bright idea to provide an API to access people's personal data, and if so, why doesn't the phone tell them that before letting them install the app? On top of all of that, why wouldn't the phone provide a setting to restrict all personal/identifying information from being accessed by the app?

Address book access is a permission just like anything else (internet access, for example), so it can fly under the radar. Android has been trying to make things like "send text messages" stand out a tad more than "write to local storage", but they may need to go even further. This is my personal favorite app permission that you can request: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.perm...

Wow. I wonder what the use-case for that is?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#112

Post by maxcan »

hawkharris wrote: post #77
maxcan wrote: post #64

I'm sure this will be downvoted to hell and back, but still: http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/46539276780/...

This was so great it almost made me laugh out loud.

the man is a genius. his other posts are also pretty awesome. however, part of me suspects that in an ultimate act of vanity, dave morin himself set up his own hateblog.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#113

Post by sp332 »

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?

Yes, you have to put this line in your app's manifest:
and the installer will prompt the user for that permission when they install the app.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#114

Post by mikeash »

bitcartel wrote: post #107
crazygringo wrote: post #34

How about another detail -- the fact that the message said the user had photos to share, when he didn't? There's annoying spam, and then there's straight-out-lying spam -- the "x has sent you a message, you need to create an account to view it" type. Just curious, is there a way to sue/fine a company like this for false advertising, essentially?

We need to nip this in the bud. Maybe it's time to create a Hippocratic Oath for developers to publicly commit to? A future Path developer could then refuse to implement an unethical "feature" by pointing out that the company had hired them with the full knowledge that the oath had been undertaken. I don't think the company would pink slip the developer, as they would probably want to avoid any attention being drawn…

What difference would that make? Path could still fire him, oath or no oath, and I can't see their decision being much influenced there.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#115

Post by VLM »

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?

This doesn't sound very difficult to verify.

Go to play.google.com. Search for path. First result in the app store. Click on Permissions.

"This application has access to the following:

... blah blah blah ...

This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.

... blah blah blah ...

read your contacts Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your tablet

... blah blah blah ...

read call log Allows the app to read your tablet's call log, including data about incoming and outgoing calls.

... blah blah blah ...

Now users have been trained to click "yes" to all requests without even reading them, so I you can get into philosophical arguments about if the "really" have permissions. Just like most users randomly click thru "click thru licences".

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#117

Post by fauigerzigerk »

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…

You are equating "grant access to the address book" with "spam all 'friends' at 6 o'clock in the morning to tell them lies"

By your logic, it would be completely useless to even read the fine print, because giving them access to the addressbook would imply my consent for them to do anything technically possible with it.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#118

Post by tlogan »

crazygringo wrote: post #34

How about another detail -- the fact that the message said the user had photos to share, when he didn't? There's annoying spam, and then there's straight-out-lying spam -- the "x has sent you a message, you need to create an account to view it" type. Just curious, is there a way to sue/fine a company like this for false advertising, essentially?

This is proven (and risky) way to grow. I really cannot blame them: they have to pay their rent and VCs are nervous.

This approach might burn them completely but also can get them to some significant number of users (after which they will issue an apology and pay all fines if needed).

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#119

Post by silencio »

Me1000 wrote: post #109
silencio wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm well aware of what prompted the change to iOS. We talked about that last year. I'm not defending anything, but that's not really at issue today, though.

Specifically in this case: pretty sure Android and Path alike might be informing you about address book access, but nowhere is the user going to be prompted for Path to share with your contacts after uninstalling the app.

Same odious behavior, just a bit different this time.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#120

Post by donretag »

Am I the only one that found this sentence interesting/amusing/silly:

"I decided the best place to contact them would be Twitter"

Why would anyone contact someone on Twitter first? Their contact page (usefulness unknown) is easy to find on their website.

Post reply on HN