161–170 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Path is young (and building a service, not a device/OS) and it can be abandoned for something similar since all they're keeping is data. Once you buy a gadget, that's an investment on your part which will make a lot of people hesitant to give it up and the culture it that surrounds it.
And I wouldn't bet that Apple will be able to survive scandal after scandal and still survive unscathed. Cook is no Jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 t…
I disagree. As a computer engineer in Canada, I must swear by the Code of Ethics because what I do (or potentially don't do) can cause harm. Ethics in computer-science-related fields are important and I think we do need a set of rules we can dogmatically follow like the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, the HO is different in that failing to follow can cause physical harm. However, the world is progressing quickly and mor…
I have been a Path user since the app launched and have never had any text messages sent to my address book. Path informed users that the address book data hook was no longer there and that all data had been removed from their services after the initial FTC inquiry. I took that at face value but after this article I would be interested in hearing a response from the company about how my information is handled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bla…
Can you actually prevent an app from using one or more of those permissions? Like can I give it permission to my camera but not to the call log?
It would be easy enough for developers to catch security exceptions that Google would find little or no developer fall-off due to a requirement like this.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 patent language says it's "a commitment from Twitter to our employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes." Extending this more broadly would say "a commitment to our employees that the code they write can only be used for non-spamming purposes."
The problem, of course, is that it's pretty easy to tell whether a patent is being used defensively or offensively. Defining spam (or more difficult yet, privacy) is a bit more slippery.
No, you didn't. You decided that you could score some quick internet drama points using Twitter.