I signed up for path a couple of months ago, with facebook. When I realised how much private photos (they didn't seem to care about the privacy settings on facebook) they took from me, I deactivated my account and sent an email asking them to remove all my information. Yesterday, I reactivated my account, lo and behold, they had not taken away my information as I asked them to do, and it seems the information had been there all along, even though I deactivated my account, because some friend of mine hade gone in and "liked" my pictures on path while my account was deactivated.
Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
281–290 of 430 posts
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially in context, the phrasing is ridiculous, but semantically it no different from "I refused to be bossed around by my phone".
Refusing to be bossed around by an inanimate object still seems somewhat ridiculous to me.
A phone, especially a ringing one, isn't particularly inanimate.
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strawman. And anyway plenty of software developers (and other engineers) won't work on armaments.
So should a software developer's code include armaments, or not? If it does, it would never get mainstream acceptance; if it doesn't, but does cover the topic of this post, it will be ethically absurd. I don't see how this is a straw man; when building a professional code, one has to choose what actions to allow or disallow, and this seems like a topic that would obviously come up. What do you think about this scenar…
This is an internal debate I've had with myself since reading Bernard William's Objections to Utilitarianism [0].
I've never had to actually face the ethical dilemma of developing weapons, but what if the development improved precision on a missile? If we can ignore the question as to whether a missile is ethical or not, developing a better guidance system for a missile will help limit collateral damage, but could increase the "comfort-level" of using the weapon for those who decide such things, therefore increasing overall death/destruction. Utilitarianism is hard, because taking all factors into account is impossible. Kind of like machine learning.
I will never scoff at someone who turns down work for ethical objections, but some people are more pragmatic than others.
Both of Williams examples are really hard to wrap your head around if you accept the situations as presented. They are similar to a Sophies Choice [1]
[0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/#Day [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_Choice_(novel)
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#284I'm sure this will be downvoted to hell and back, but still: http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/46539276780/...
Looking at other posts, those writings lack empathy and imagination. The post about Google Glass [0] is probably one of the most asinine thing I read on the Internet this month. [0] - http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/48596551224/...
it's obviously written in that voice for effect, but there is actual thought behind it. comparing google glasses to segway is valid, and probably not far off. only time will tell.
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#285A terms needs to be coined for this behavior- perhaps "PATHology"?
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#286Earlier 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.
How would this be any different from the situation today, where he writes a blog post titled, "Path fired me for not spamming millions of people's phones" and the community rallies around the whistle-blower?
[deleted]
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#287Sounds like a job for Anonymous
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 yo…
Without addressing the opt-in point, which I agree with... You're also assuming there is no "continue without doing this" button, which of course, I was assuming there would be... Many users just mash on the "next" button on app intro screens. Again, it's all just speculation until someone takes the time to start researching and documenting the facts instead of just yelling "KILL IT"! :/
You "assume" there would be? You worked for Path...
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#289Earlier 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…
Read data about contacts doesn't sound unreasonable for an app like Path though. Facebook uses that permission to sync contacts if you want, and I don't see any problem with that. Unfortunately, reading data means they can store it, off device, independently of the install state. That's a difficult problem to solve, but I don't think users should be expected to expect this as a result of that permission.
Exactly. WhatsApp wants permission to practically everything possible, because it offers various features on top of these permissions. Yet it never spammed anyone so far from what I can tell.
Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM
#290The article is wrong and a linkbait. 1. Was the feature designed badly? Yes. Friends should be unchecked by default. 2. Did Path call anyone? No. That's a service from phone providers when a text is sent to a landline. 3. Did Path sent texts without permission of the user? No. But the feature was designed in a way that many people just tapped yes and didn't uncheck their contacts.
> Did Path sent texts without permission of the user? No.
No?
The permissions screen is shown in the verge article. It's labelled: "Find Your Friends: Path is more fun with friends. Find out who's already on Path."
I interpret that as asking permission to run my contacts against its database and tell me who else is already on Path. Not as asking permission to text people who aren't.
Permission to do some X with a contacts list is not permission to do anything with a contacts list.