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

381–390 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#381

Post by chii »

amirmc wrote: post #311
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…

yep - agreed that just because nearly everyone does the same thing doesn't mean its a good thing to do: nearly everyone used to own slaves (except the slaves).

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#382

Post by glogla »

Contero wrote: post #295
makomk wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android's permission system also doesn't require apps to ask for permission before they access your phonebook - it requires you to give permission to install the app, and it tells you the app can view your phonebook, but you have to either trust the app not to abuse that ability or not install it at all. There's no way of telling the difference between an app that can use your phonebook to provide useful optional fun…

I really think Android should add another layer of protection here, similar to the "This app wants to use your location" prompt in iOS. I'd like to be able to install an app that might need to access my phonebook in some use case but be able to deny it when it attempts to access that information when I don't want it to. For example, I'd want to be able to use the facebook app and many users might even want to have it…

On a rooted android phone, it is possible to install apps but not give the the permission. Of course, that usually means they will crash then they try to do something, but it gives you a layer of protection if you want to try the app out or something.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#383

Post by jfim »

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 may vary by province, but our provincial engineering board will not stand up for you if you get fired due to upholding your code of ethics (they even told us so in ethics class).

Furthermore, whistleblowers are often unemployed for extended periods of time, due to corporations not wanting to hire them as they could be a liability.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#385

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

paddyoloughlin wrote: post #367
jimbokun wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think anyone is saying it's a solution to all problems, just that it might be a problem to some problems.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#386

Post by Synthpixel »

sounds wrote: post #365
freshhawk wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your _personal_ ethics can easily get you _fired_.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#387

Post by chris_wot »

Me1000 wrote: post #280
droithomme wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never hidden that I interned at Path. The address book debacle happened long before I ever joined. The code you're talking about did little more than normalize phone numbers so it could be hashed _before_ it was sent to the server. It's been about nine months since I've worked at Path and as you may know (although, given how baseless your comment is, perhaps you wouldn't know)... startups move quickly, Path has…

FWIW, while I disagree with your stated opinion, I can also see how you came to it. I think most of us here realise that your opinion is separate from your past employment.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#388

Post by microtherion »

rdl wrote: post #196
maxcan wrote: post #64

I'm sure this will be downvoted to hell and back, but still: http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/46539276780/...

Turning off the ringer on your phone is totally legit, though. I don't believe in interrupt-driven communication, unless it's mediated through a machine or some kind of filter. (I'll let a machine notify me if lots of stuff is down, or if one of a very small number of people call me, but that's about it. IIRC, pg's call went to voicemail a couple years ago.

Turning off the ringer on your phone is totally legit, though.

For the CEO of a business that sends phone spam to other people at 6AM, it’s also rather telling behavior, though.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#389

Post by lucb1e »

Contero wrote: post #295
makomk wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android's permission system also doesn't require apps to ask for permission before they access your phonebook - it requires you to give permission to install the app, and it tells you the app can view your phonebook, but you have to either trust the app not to abuse that ability or not install it at all. There's no way of telling the difference between an app that can use your phonebook to provide useful optional fun…

I really think Android should add another layer of protection here, similar to the "This app wants to use your location" prompt in iOS. I'd like to be able to install an app that might need to access my phonebook in some use case but be able to deny it when it attempts to access that information when I don't want it to. For example, I'd want to be able to use the facebook app and many users might even want to have it…

> I really think Android should add another layer of protection here, similar to the "This app wants to use your location" prompt in iOS

Most definitely. This has always been my argument against the whole system: installing apps that need excessive permissions is basically blackmail. Just like "Do you agree to the terms of service?", you hardly have a choice. I was very surprised to see people not even glance at the permissions before clicking Accept.

But as I said, it's blackmail anyway whether you look or not. You don't want them to have all your contacts, your exact location, all data on your sdcard, and full network access? Fine then, you won't get [whatsapp] (or pretty much any other app), that what everyone else has and that you're almost socially obliged to have (at least in my age category).

It even goes so far that the android user has no permissions to use the permission manager to deny or allow permissions for apps. There are commands ("pm grant x" and "pm revoke y") that lets you change apps' permissions... but you can't use it by default, even as root ("java.lang.SecurityException: Neither user [your uid] nor current process has android.permission.GRANT_REVOKE_PERMISSIONS"). It's totally messed up.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#390

Post by dnissley »

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…

What I really wish there was in android is a way to disable permissions after installing an app. Obviously this probably won't make it into stock android, but I would love to be able to install an app like Pandora and then revoke specific privileges.

Then whenever the app attempted to use those revoked permissions, android would do something logical for certain cases (like providing an empty contacts list for the contacts permissions), or even just crash the app if it couldn't do anything else. I would totally be willing to accept a certain amount of instability for a feature like this.

Post reply on HN