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

311–320 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#311

Post by amirmc »

pmarca wrote: post #294

This is not a comment specifically on Path -- I don't know anything about what they are doing or not doing. But more generally: one of the most interesting parts of startups is the tension between "Don't Be Evil" and "Don't Fail". It would be good to be able to discuss this more openly -- "Don't Be Evil" by itself is too utopian. Many of the most successful companies in the world did things in their early days -- or…

There are many (perhaps dubious) things I've learned from friends about how to grow/bootstrap users. If I decide to ever use any of those tactics then I'll know I'm doing something dodgy and work to mitigate any risks. I'd bet that the successful companies you're referring to also knew that they were on shaky ground and acted accordingly.

However, problems arise when startups begin to think that behaving this way is 'normal'. During the previous furore over Path grabbing address books, the CEO claimed it was "industry best practice". Just because (nearly) everyone does it, doesn't make it "best practice". It actually belongs on the 'list-of-dodgy-things' and therefore should be treated with the appropriate caution.

This is one reason I have a gripe with the "Move fast and break things" bandwagon. It's not really appropriate if you're stumbling around in a minefield.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#312

Post by pjbrunet »

gtaylor wrote: post #83
sandaru1 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 with…

"Android shows the permissions each app is requesting before you install"

Yes and no. Google often hides the most offensive permission requests under that "see more" arrow. And the permission requests (and accompanying explanations) are too vague and ambiguous. For example: Does "request access to network" mean they're able to sniff all my incoming/outgoing data, granting the app access to everything?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#313

Post by freshhawk »

mjolk wrote: post #230
darxius wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour. No, it's our responsibility as decent people. I don't need to sign some online pledge to keep myself from pushing people in front of trains. If I was the sort to harm others, why would I care about some meaningless online campaign?

"No, it's our responsibility as decent people"

Well, yes. But there is a reason that every profession that has tackled this problem has used a system of oaths and certification. Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers are the canonical examples.

You need something that is given and can be taken away for bad behaviour in order to change behaviour at this level. Damn human brains.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#314

Post by amirmc »

ysapir wrote: post #172

This seems to be a direct violation of Google Play policy: "Do not send SMS, email, or other messages on behalf of the user without providing the user with the ability to confirm content and intended recipient." https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

Not quite. The messages aren't being sent from the device, they're being sent by Path from their own infrastructure once they've uploaded the address-book.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#315

Post by freshhawk »

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…

Engineers have this system already and have had it forever. In Canada (the one I'm familiar with) it is the P.Eng (Professional Engineer) license.

I think the system should be licensing and involve losing that license if you commit an ethics violation.

There would be unlicensed developers of course, but connecting the incentive to not do unethical things with the incentive to be part of the elite class in your profession has worked pretty damn well for Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#316

Post by Alex3917 »

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?

"Just curious, is there a way to sue/fine a company like this for false advertising, essentially?"

Yes. It's illegal to use someone else's likeness for advertising without their permission.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#317

Post by bane »

microtherion wrote: post #241
bane wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I viscerally agree with this: But I'm not sure if Turing, who is not well known for having had anything to do with privacy is the right person for this oath.

Arguably, the root cause of Turing’s persecution was that his privacy got invaded, and subsequently the government did not think he had a right to his private conduct. Though admittedly, no technology was involved in the whole matter. Also, Turing’s wartime exploits involved a breach of privacy in the service of a good cause.

Arguably, the root cause of Turing’s persecution was that his privacy got invaded, and subsequently the government did not think he had a right to his private conduct.

Actually, come to think of it, if viewed in that way, he's the perfect name for an ethics oath regarding privacy. I hadn't considered it that way.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#319

Post by zachlipton »

obviouslygreen wrote: post #227
pessimizer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." I can't figure out what you mean by this. Are you saying that this behavior is only alright when you need the money?

Definitely not. I'm saying it's never "right" in a moral/ethical sense, but when you're put in certain (fairly common) positions, the moral high ground is not a feasible option for most people. It comes down to whether you consider stability for those who depend on you more or less important than doing or refusing to do something based on whether you consider it right or wrong... that's something that's easy to judge…

This isn't the hypothetical where you're stealing a loaf of bread from the market to feed your starving family. I certainly respect that taking the moral high ground isn't always easy and that some people are going to be in situations where it is more difficult for them to do so than for others.

But the standard for acting like an asshole has to be greater than simple expediency. The necessity of breaking the social contract has to be roughly proportional to the community inconvenience; that's why firemen get to use the siren and everyone is supposed to yield when they are headed to, well, fight a fire, but I don't get to use one when I'm headed to the grocery store.

If I bang on a stranger's door at 6am because their house is on fire and I'm trying to warn them, then that's great, because the "don't harass strangers at six in the freaking morning" social norm is less important than the "OMG THE FLAMES THEY BURN!" social norm. In contrast, if I bang on someone's door at 6am trying to sell Amway products, then I'm an asshole. Finally, If I bang on someone's door at 6am, insist that their buddy, whose name I found by going through the trash, has photos to share with them, and only later reveal that there never were any photos, then I'm an unbelievable jackass.

Post reply on HN