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

361–370 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#361

Post by magic_haze »

dredmorbius wrote: post #352

And this is why I fundamentally don't trust my smartphone. It's a fun device. But it's a spy, outside my control, in my pocket. I've rooted it, but haven't yet modded it (and if anyone cares to point me at a gentle introduction for CyanogenMod or another option that works on an HTC Incredible, I'm all ears). I've been reasonably conservative in what apps I place on my phone, and several (Pandora specifically comes to…

A thousand times this. Why does the OS not make the app permissions more granular than a bit flag? Every app and its dog nowadays require all these really invasive data permissions, and all the choice we're given is either "yes to all" or GTFO. Google went to great efforts to design the concept of contact circles (something that could easily have prevented the OP's problem), why is Android still stuck in the dark ages of data sharing?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#362

Post by aptwebapps »

danielweber wrote: post #209
seiji wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Haven't seen this mentioned yet, but ... http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/11/01/92244... I often find myself saying, "I bet somebody got a really nice bonus for that feature." "That feature" is something aggressively user-hostile,...

Nice post, but putting shortcuts in Quick Launch bar seems pretty standard these days and I like it as long as the installer asks. Also, he mentions the fact a programmer would have to hard code the file path ... I don't see why they couldn't write an algorithm to discover it instead.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#363

Post by apike »

amartya916 wrote: post #342
apike wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Collecting and using my private info to, say, recommend friends in their UI is something I could imagine a product manager doing on purpose. Creepy, but you can see why they would think this is helpful. Spamming every number in my phone book with texts about photos that don't exist at 6am is not something I could imagine a product manager doing on purpose.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#364

Post by reidrac »

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?

Well, I don't think we should look for malice when is just incompetence.

LinkedIn keeps asking me to share my mail user/password so I can connect with more people, and says that X and many others already did it. I can't tell about others, but X is my wife and I'm certain she didn't do it.

So well, as I said I think that this is just a matter of incompetence (ie. automated message gone wrong).

EDIT: typo

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#365

Post by sounds »

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…

This is an important sticking point. Maybe a Professional Engineering certification isn't the solution, but let's not get hung up here.

Example: P.E. certified people should have no problem creating weapons systems for a nation-state at war. Does that make it ethical? Depends on who writes the history books afterward.

Example: P.E. certified people might refuse to participate in experimental, unorthodox methods. But especially in software these often become the runaway successes.

In other words _you_ have to own _your_ personal ethics. You won't be able to point and say "I was just following orders!" The pointy-haired boss who gave the orders isn't going to be able to exonerate you of the guilt. Often he doesn't even congratulate you for "doing the right thing." Maybe he'll fire you or give you a bonus – or join you in prison! – but my point is: it's orthogonal to your personal ethics.

Ethics may sometimes appear to conflict with rapid progress. That doesn't necessarily imply an existential crisis, just a lack of forethought. So many ethical problems arise due to overflowing ignorance / lack of forethought combined with a sudden rash of malice (when it comes time to pay the piper). Ethics are a way of expressing realities about the world that conflict with the general Adam Smithian "enlightened self-interest." I view ethics as meta-enlightened self interest – like how Apple is more than just industry-leading, they carved new niches where no one thought to go.

Engineers (software engineers or otherwise) have untangled things much more complicated than this. It's only overwhelming if it blows up in your face.

Path seems like a classic case of all of the above.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#366

Post by tzury »

The very fact that a product/service/company does not have a clear and solid revenue model. The fact that their success is measured by generated traffic (downloads/page-views/subscribers etc) can cause some people to make very strange choices.

This may not be the reason but surely helps many in our industry to reach those dark spots of ethics and faithfulness.

If your users are customers, that is, they pay you, then you will care about their privacy, as you know that otherwise, you will loos them.

If they don't, and yet consume your bandwidth and CPU, you may find yourself end up sniffing their address-books, claiming copyrights on their images or selling their clicks and choices to campaigners.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#367

Post by paddyoloughlin »

jimbokun wrote: post #329
danielweber wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't seen this mentioned yet, but ... http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/11/01/92244... I often find myself saying, "I bet somebody got a really nice bonus for that feature." "That feature" is something aggressively user-hostile,...

A lot of the things mentioned there are good reasons for a curated App Store approach. It's almost impossible to stop arbitrary programs from abusing features of the OS on which they run, unless you have control over which ban poorly behaving programs from ever reaching end users.

On the other hand, isn't Path's app distributed by a curated App Store?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#368

Post by SagelyGuru »

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?

See, I am not convinced that it was an innocent "automated mistake". This is equivalent to the anecdotal old excuse one always hears from the government officials: "the computer did it". When some spamming process like this is automated, all it means is that it is being inflicted on lots of people and most likely deliberately, so automation is not something that can be accepted as an excuse, on the contrary, it is an aggravating circumstance.

I incline towards the opinion that these sharks do it quite deliberately. They just don't care how many people they embarrass and annoy, as long as some of those tech-innocent grannies and plumbers join up and thus put figures on their business projection sheets that get these sharks closer to cashing in big on an FB style IPO.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#369

Post by Mordor »

I know this is totally off topic, but why does File Expert need to read my contacts? Would be better if Android was able to install apps while selectively denying certain permissions. Another option is to prompt, e.g. "send path.com your address book [yes|no]?"

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#370

Post by chris_wot »

droithomme wrote: post #255
Me1000 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a great example of how people are so quick to rush to judgement with emotional reactions. Let's look at the facts: 1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. 2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somew…

Me1000, you should mention to the folks here that you actually worked on the address book stealing code during your time working at Path so you are particularly aware that the statements in your post there are both untrue and self-serving.

Doxing Me1000 is incredibly uncool.
Post reply on HN