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

141–150 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#141

Post by darxius »

darxius wrote: post #121
bitcartel wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that's a great idea. Drafting a version of it right now.

I wrote up something quite quickly: http://maxmackie.com/2013/04/30/The-Turing-Oath:-The-Promise...

"The Turing Oath" is on Github (https://github.com/maxmackie/Turing-Oath/blob/master/README....) and I recommend people contribute and we grow this to become something people recognize.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#142

Post by mjolk »

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…

>Maybe it's time to create a Hippocratic Oath for developers to publicly commit to?

This is silly. Stop trying to add grandeur to writing some code at X,Y startup/company.

People don't die or get harmed when some social-messaging application spams someone. Code is a way to implement an idea. Most applications exist to make money. If this a shock to you, read the user agreement before installing/upgrading, uninstall the application, or realize that in social networking, your personal data what the company uses to make a profit.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#143

Post by randrews »

tlogan wrote: post #133
eropple wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really cannot blame them Shitty behavior does not stop being shitty behavior because you have bills to pay. And it's not even in the "understandable under duress" area of shitty; Path isn't a person with a starving child and that dude's contact list isn't a loaf of bread. If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.

I completely agree with you on "If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.". However, here in VC-stanm the behavior like this is considered "hacking the growth" and something which is not considered a bad thing. So unfortunately, you cannot play the game here (ok, you can play but no big money will bet on you) if you not ready to do things like this.

Shitty behavior also does not stop being shitty behavior when you're pressured into doing it.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#144

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

Groxx wrote: post #106

Looks like this might be related to the "find friends" button. There are a handful of reviews in the Play store that mention it messaging everyone. This is why I hate install-time permissions. It means you have to trust an app until uninstall do you part, which generally happens well after abuses.

>This is why I hate install-time permissions.

Android developer here: I would have to say a mix of permission types would be best. Sometimes a feature of an app is crucial to its design (or, to be blunt, to its monetization).

A few things -- using the camera on the phone, accessing the address book, sending text messages, maybe a few others -- would be great to request as "optional permissions," or even better, "runtime-granted permissions," so that an app that only 5% of the time needs that permission could ask for it LATER instead of making everyone who installs the app agree to using a permission that they may not want the app to have.

As it stands, you'd have to break your app up into several different downloads in order to have optional features. Not impossible, but neither is it a good user experience.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#145

Post by __alexs »

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…

The ACM and IEEE both have a "code of ethics"

http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#147

Post by 286c8cb04bda »

ColinCochrane wrote: post #111
pkulak wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Enterprise anti-theft tools.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#148

Post by mjolk »

criley wrote: post #136
mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publicity. He writes a blog "Path fired me for not breaking the oath" and then communities like this one will rally around that whistle-blower.

Yeah, that negative publicity around Foxconn's workplace conditions really tanked Apple.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#149

Post by Samuel_Michon »

dbpatterson wrote: post #129
taude wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that is says "Deactivating your account will remove your content from Path. If you reactivate your account, your content will come back." Not deleting your content, though. I hate that.

It's also a bald-faced lie. If it removes the content, then there is no way for it to come back.

The wording is slippery and pretty deceptive, but it’s technically correct.

“Deactivating your account will remove your content from Path.”

The ‘Path’ in the sentence refers to the social network, not the company’s servers.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#150

Post by seiji »

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…

A "Hippocratic Oath for developers" sounds like a great idea, but we vastly underestimate the number of jerkbags in the world.

People want validation. Line-level employees want praise from coworkers and bosses. Executives want praise from their peers, investors, industry, and press. Concepts like ethics, "right," or even this-is-good-for-thie-world isn't a concern when faced with "X will increase my social status and happiness with my peer brogrammers." What's X? It's anything possible, regardless of legal, right, wrong, or ethical.

A nontrivial number of companies use unethical methods (spam, false invites, false installs, phone and email address book capture, fake attractive profiles) to increase their vanity metrics. Employees see those methods as either: "this is bad, but it's sooooo good for us — look at all the lame n00bs who fall for our tricks" or "this is bad, and I'm ashamed to work here."

The ones who feel shame would take the Hippogrammer Oath. Those who revel in manipulating others and standing on their broken bodies will rake in all the profits while the good guys just sit around and "play nice."

Even the tech darlings of today used spammy methods to grow their initial user base. How do you grow your userbase to ten million when you're growing at a constant 5,000 per day? Obviously you want to "go viral." How does one just on a whim "go viral?" You can either become a meme, a social phenomenon, or spam and manipulate unsuspecting people. Spam is less work than creativity.

Post reply on HN