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

391–400 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#391

Post by pekk »

freshhawk wrote: post #313
mjolk wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Taken away by whom and on what basis? I would dispute that you need the ability to take away other individuals' ability to lawfully write software. That ability is bound to be abused for political reasons (which is also what it looks like when people have reasonably different ethical systems and one imposes his by force).

Anyway, the issue at hand is bad corporate behavior, not bad programmers. I don't see why we need to start licking our chops about the prospect of forming a blacklist against individual programmers.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#392

Post by pekk »

questionhn wrote: post #197

is there a way to sandbox an application? say i install an app, but i want that app to see exactly 0 contacts when i actually have more contacts than that.

Of course not, that would make the App Store less valuable to its customers (namely, app vendors).

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#393

Post by lucb1e »

dnissley wrote: post #390
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 con…

> "What I really wish there was in android is a way to disable permissions after installing an app."

You can, you can! Only Google went ahead and disabled it for you. The commands are "pm revoke x" and "pm grant y", but if you ever try it (even running as root), you'll get this message:

Operation not allowed: java.lang.SecurityException: Neither user [your uid] nor current process has android.permission.GRANT_REVOKE_PERMISSIONS

> "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."

Exactly! Same for me. If this made it into stock android, developers would be forced to put phone book access in a try{} block so that permission revoking doesn't crash the entire app. Your solution with returning an empty phone book sounds even better, but that's also more work so I don't know whether that'll ever make it... Then again, it's a much nicer solution, so who knows.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#394

Post by lucb1e »

taylorbuley wrote: post #49
kemayo wrote: post #28

I think the HN traffic may have destroyed another WordPress install. So, google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...

For those with WordPress installs who want to survive an HN frontpage: 1. if you don't have sudo, use the W3 Total Cache plugin http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/w3-total-cache/ 2. if you have sudo: 2a. the easy way: apt-get install memcached, add the pecl memcache extension, and use object-cache.php http://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/memcached/trunk/object-cache.php and batcache http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/b…

    rm -rf /var/www/wordpress
FTFY

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#395

Post by kevincennis »

chris_wot wrote: post #370
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.

Doxing Me1000 is incredibly uncool.

That's not really doxing, I don't think. He's got links in his profile and the same username as on Twitter.

Lots of people know Randy. He's had posts on the front page of HN.

As much as a developer can be a "public figure", I think he is one.

If John Resig posted about DOM libraries and someone mentioned that he wrote jQuery, I don't think anyone would suggest he'd been doxed.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#396

Post by lucb1e »

w1ntermute wrote: post #13
raverbashing wrote: post #7

This is good information I'll make sure to never install Path There are some abuses that can't be solved by an apology.

Yeah, this just convinced me to never use Path too.

Great, we have a few more convinced not to use Path. One application will now have perhaps a few hundred less users. What about the rest of the permission-hungry apps? Whatsapp? Facebook? Any Google app? Any other big developer's app? What if the founders of Path just start a new company?

Not installing Path is not a solution here. You gotta look critically at the permissions an app uses and their terms of service (at least skip to the privacy related issues, though they usually try to hide and obfuscate them). If there is something you don't entirely trust, wonder why you really need that app. Perhaps it's an improvement for your life, but can't you really live without? You've gone without that app for the past how many years? Is it worth giving up your phone book and all sdcard contents?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#397

Post by radiusq »

ericd wrote: post #324
jliptzin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple math is all it takes to understand why this is pervasive. In the classmates.com example, they collected upwards of $75 million in revenue from this scheme, and only had to dish out $2.75 million for the settlement several years later. So for any newcomers, this type of bait is an attractive business proposition; the potential lawsuit years down the line can simply be attributed to cost of revenue. And you'll o…

There's the hidden cost of permanently alienating potential customers, though, which will show up silently in reduced conversion on all subsequent advertising efforts.

Sure. But it gets some douche product manager his bonus for revenue/user acquisition which was the only goal in the scheme.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#398

Post by raverbashing »

lucb1e wrote: post #396
w1ntermute wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this just convinced me to never use Path too.

Great, we have a few more convinced not to use Path. One application will now have perhaps a few hundred less users. What about the rest of the permission-hungry apps? Whatsapp? Facebook? Any Google app? Any other big developer's app? What if the founders of Path just start a new company? Not installing Path is not a solution here. You gotta look critically at the permissions an app uses and their terms of service (a…

You're correct, and it gives me the shivers to see an application like 'photo sharing' wanting several useless permissions

Here's what I would like: for Android to allow me to deny or ask for a confirmation for each permission of these.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#399

Post by lucb1e »

raverbashing wrote: post #398
lucb1e wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, we have a few more convinced not to use Path. One application will now have perhaps a few hundred less users. What about the rest of the permission-hungry apps? Whatsapp? Facebook? Any Google app? Any other big developer's app? What if the founders of Path just start a new company? Not installing Path is not a solution here. You gotta look critically at the permissions an app uses and their terms of service (a…

You're correct, and it gives me the shivers to see an application like 'photo sharing' wanting several useless permissions Here's what I would like: for Android to allow me to deny or ask for a confirmation for each permission of these.

Or ask upon usage. "Do you want to grant XYZ to view your contact list? [Yes, and don't ask again] [Just this time] [Never]"

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#400

Post by eropple »

obviouslygreen wrote: post #305
gsk wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds patronizing. As adults, you make your choice and face the consequences. That you may have dependents does not reduce your moral responsibility one bit.

Clearly you don't know how it feels to actually have "dependents" or what that responsibility entails. This will sound patronizing, but it's absolutely valid: Come back and comment on this in 10 to 20 years. At that point you might have the perspective you clearly lack now. [edit]To be clear: I do not have dependents, but I also don't have an employer (who isn't me), and I do have people that depend on me. What I als…

It sounds patronizing because it is. It sounds silly because it's that, too.

Doing the right thing is sometimes difficult. That's not an excuse to do the wrong thing. Indiscriminately spamming hundreds of contacts is always the wrong thing.

Post reply on HN