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

331–340 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#331

Post by pjbrunet »

smirksirlot wrote: post #326
pjbrunet wrote: post #306

I blame Google and Android and its Play Store. So many apps ask for ridiculous access to everything, they should really discourage this. There should be a big red flag on any apps that ask for "superuser" access to my phone. After getting a "smartphone" I've had 50x more spam calls. I never had this problem pre-Android. Coincidentally, spam peaks when I'm using my phone, which makes me wonder if these apps are tellin…

You're blaming the Play Store for something that the app developers decided to do? Just because there's a hole doesn't mean it should be abused, particularly since Path is supposed to be from a "legit" company.

Yes I am. If there's a hole in IE allowing a virus to proliferate, don't we blame IE and get a security patch or switch to another browser? How is this any different? The root of the problem is Android and the Play Store.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#333

Post by pjbrunet »

georgemcbay wrote: post #159
ios84dev wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no official support for this AFAIK. Some 3rd party ROMs like Cyanogenmod have this functionality built in, though, and if you root your phone there are apps like "Permissions Denied" that you can run to do this. I'd assume the reason Google is somewhat hesitant to offer this officially is that many apps don't deal well with this -- some do degrade gracefully, while others end up throwing task-ending exceptio…

Sounds like a huge time investment and you risk bricking your phone? Doesn't seem worth it.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#335

Post by duncan_bayne »

freshhawk wrote: post #315
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…

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 profes…

> has worked pretty damn well for Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers.

... and has pretty much screwed over the rest of society, at least in the latter two cases. The legal and medical cartels have done incredible harm to their customers over the years.

See http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=51 (law) and http://mises.org/daily/4276 (medicine) for details.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#336

Post by smsm42 »

jimbokun wrote: post #330
smsm42 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in Canada, software engineers never cause harm to anyone? Nice to know. >>>> I think we do need a set of rules we can dogmatically follow like the Hippocratic Oath. So you don't actually have to employ your own brain and your own moral judgement, because somebody already did it for you and wrote this nice set of rules, that you swore by Apollo to faithfully execute, without thinking, not unlike that box of wires a…

"So you don't actually have to employ your own brain and your own moral judgement, because somebody already did it for you and wrote this nice set of rules, that you swore by Apollo to faithfully execute, without thinking, not unlike that box of wires and silicon chips you are paid to play with? Nice arrangement, I suppose." So I assume you never use any open source code in any of your programming projects, since you…

You assume wrong, this in no way follows from what I have said and I never said that I am "fundamentally opposed to adopting any ideas that are not exclusively your own". You must have by accident commented in a wrong branch.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#337

Post by Tsagadai »

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?

In Australia it is possible to get companies that send unwanted texts banned from sending texts on Australian networks.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#338

Post by bitcartel »

tedks wrote: post #218
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…

Does this mean that we can't write software for drones anymore? What about software for missile guidance? Is that okay by this oath? Or do we as a community value not texting people at 6AM more than we value not killing people?

That's a decision for each individual developer to make.

Some folk tried to create a pacifist version of the GPL[1].

Others are using the RMPL (RobotGroup-Multiplo-Pacifist-License)[2] - basically a MIT license, but with a restriction that bans military projects.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/08/7511/

[2] http://multiplo.com.ar/soft/Mbq/Minibloq.Lic.v1.0.en.pdf

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#339

Post by ysapir »

amirmc wrote: post #314
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.

The policy does not make that distinction.

An app generally needs a backend and it is clear some of the policies are directed towards not the app itself but how it interacts with the backend. These same guidelines are meant to be used to stop apps such as malware games that collect contacts and send them to the backend to be used as spam email lists.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#340

Post by huckleberries21 »

mjolk wrote: post #142
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…

>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…

This response assumes that joining all social networks is user choice. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it hurts consumers NOT to be on some networks. LinkedIn (which also has had a history of horrible spamming in the past) is an example - sure, you can choose not to be on it, but you'll probably get dinged by hiring managers because your credentials somehow seem less legitimate if not corroborated by LinkedIn.
Post reply on HN