Live data from Hacker News

Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

branded3.com

341–350 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#341

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.

It would be interesting to combine this with an open source license which links to the Oath, and forbids use of the code in any project or system which breaks the Oath.

For developers who have undertaken the Oath, the challenge would then be to write the best code, so that it sees widespread adoption. This might potentially make it harder for companies like Path to engage in activities which break the Oath.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#342
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the reasons that make you so sure, though? To me, it's not clear at all just from the symptoms that it is a bug. It could just as well be a feature they're only testing out on 0.1% of the user base to see how their engagement or whatever improves.

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems just so insanely bad that I assumed no product manager or engineer would intentionally cause this behavior.

I am sure you've already done so, but in case you haven't, read about Path's previous snafus.

Recently fined by the FTC: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2026985/ftc-fines-maker-of-pa...

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#343
How about a little bit of consistency for the Path url in the tweet. I know its now common practice, but this obscuring of links is what I have repeated told my family and many friends to avoid clicking on, so to avoid downloading viruses or going to sites they don't intend to.

For "bit.ly/PathHelp" the underlying url is "t.co/B4lOWrDqyr" and it redirects to "service.path.com/customer/portal/emails/new"

I'm sure there is a reason for it, but just having service.path.com or help.path.com would be more beneficial for the company to both have as a url and to tweet to (former) customers/users.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#344

How about a little bit of consistency for the Path url in the tweet. I know its now common practice, but this obscuring of links is what I have repeated told my family and many friends to avoid clicking on, so to avoid downloading viruses or going to sites they don't intend to. For "bit.ly/PathHelp" the underlying url is "t.co/B4lOWrDqyr" and it redirects to "service.path.com/customer/portal/emails/new" I'm sure ther…

Has to do with URL character count - Twitter limit is 140.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#345

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…

We don't need an oath. We need to stop using Path. We need to get everyone we know to stop using Path. No need to over complicate things.

Getting everyone to stop using Path is pretty over-complicated.

We need them to change their ways, not disappear.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#346
post #150

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…

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…

This would be great...

I remember having to put my job on the line a few times for refusing to program / setup something awful.

One of the worst was when I was asked to combine all divisions email lists and send out a marketing email selling some overpriced book, this was against the Privacy Act (AU), against our privacy policy and highly unethical to boot, refused and was given a written warning.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#347

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.

"The Privacy Act gives you the right to make a complaint if you believe an Australian or ACT government agency, or a private sector organisation covered by the Act, has mishandled your personal information contained in a record."

http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/what

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#348
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I generally agree with this, which is why I find the idea of a "developer's code" somewhat ridiculous.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#349
post #230

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?

An engineer holds a license such that they can profess, which license is conditional to the respect of their code of ethics (and a bunch of rules). If they do not follow those conditions, their license can be revoked.

So what if they lose their license? They can still write code and do harm.

Yes, indeed. As it stands right now, the reality of the engineer's license is such that it doesn't fit very well the software world. The vast majority of companies couldn't give less of a damn whether you are licensed or not. However, it depends.

Regulations might eventually come in place to force software producers to hire only licensed engineers if the nature of their business is prone to put the public in danger. And as technology grows ever deeper into our lives, the danger that consumer apps can cause on the public is ever growing as well. For instance, breaching a user's privacy can be enough info to grant an ill-intended operator access to the user's e-mail through social engineering, from which it is then often trivial to gain access to that user's bank informations. You don't need that much imagination to figure out a scenario where a user's life can be turned to shit by some software abuse.

Given that this risk is ever growing, the possibility of a code of ethic on software business is plausible. Say in X months, the government of country Y decides that companies hoping to run a social network available on their territories must hire licensed software-engineers, and have them all sign-off any code that is presented to the public. That software engineer they'd hire would have to put their license and career in jeopardy if they were to implement some evil feature.

Before Québec's bridge, engineers didn't need a license to build infrastructure. The parallel between the current situation and the past isn't too hard to make.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#350
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The irony being that the government isn't strictly bound by copyright or licensing terms. They can and have violated them as needed.
Post reply on HN