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

251–260 of 430 posts

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#251

Post by gsk »

obviouslygreen wrote: post #227
pessimizer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." I can't figure out what you mean by this. Are you saying that this behavior is only alright when you need the money?

Definitely not. I'm saying it's never "right" in a moral/ethical sense, but when you're put in certain (fairly common) positions, the moral high ground is not a feasible option for most people. It comes down to whether you consider stability for those who depend on you more or less important than doing or refusing to do something based on whether you consider it right or wrong... that's something that's easy to judge…

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.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#252

Post by rhizome »

Me1000 wrote: post #100
blaabjerg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service. That's not true, is it? According to the FTC[1], they were fined for "collecting personal information from their mobile device address books without their knowledge and consent." 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…

1. The sub title: "Company also Will Pay $800,000 for Allegedly Collecting Kids' Personal Information without their Parents’ Consent" The fine was only with regard to the violation of CIPA.

They pled down, effectively. They were charged with more widely-ranging violations.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#253

Post by onemorepassword »

Why on earth are people still using Path after it has become so very obvious a long time ago how unethical this company is?

This kind of behavior doesn't just go away after a bit of bad publicity or a few fines. It's part of the DNA of a company. Such a lack of ethics permeates everything from strategic decisions to technical choices to hiring.

Expect more of the same.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#254

Post by makomk »

bm1362 wrote: post #108
silencio wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me1000, I love you, but... > The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somewhere along the way, the user knowingly gave Path access to their contacts. The introduction of address book privacy in iOS was in large part prompted by the publication of Path's behavior. Up until the Path and eventually iOS update after the controversy first arose, Path didn't explicitly ask the user…

OP is using an android phone.

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 functionality and one that'll upload the entire thing to the mothership the moment you start it.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#255

Post by droithomme »

Me1000 wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Path must really like thos FTC fines. Here's to hoping the next fine will exceed their cash reserves and we can put an end to this madness. The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it.

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.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#256

Post by micampe »

nwh wrote: post #242
micampe wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The post is proof positive that path still uploads phonebooks from the app to their servers right after installing it. Is it? The texts were coming from his phone number, which suggests they were sent from his phone (not necessarily, I know, but you said "proof positive"). I don't know how Android text message sending works, but there is likely some rate limiting to how many texts you can send so they certainly cou…

The sent address on an SMS is as meaningless as it is on an email. SMS gateways allow the sender to use any number or caller ID. I've used it previously as a party trick, it's completely transparent to the user.

I know that, and I said so in the comment, I have used it myself in some projects. I just meant that this is not necessarily "proof positive": there are other ways they could have sent those texts without uploading the user's address book to their server.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#257

Post by micampe »

ahknight wrote: post #245
micampe wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps can't send text messages without the user knowing it on iOS, you have to tap Send for each one of them, so this couldn't have affected App Store rankings.

You presume the app sent it and not their servers or a partner service provider. They already grab your address book, including phone numbers. They don't need you after that.

In that case don't you think we would have seen many more reports of this shady practice? This seems to me a combination of purposefully bad UI and the user not paying attention.

Still the same practice spammers use, but very different from "covertly uploading my contacts data and texting everyone without telling me".

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#258

Post by tedks »

jrabone wrote: post #229
tedks wrote: 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?

Strawman. And anyway plenty of software developers (and other engineers) won't work on armaments.

So should a software developer's code include armaments, or not?

If it does, it would never get mainstream acceptance; if it doesn't, but does cover the topic of this post, it will be ethically absurd.

I don't see how this is a straw man; when building a professional code, one has to choose what actions to allow or disallow, and this seems like a topic that would obviously come up. What do you think about this scenario misrepresents the idea of a developer's professional code?

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#259

Post by hkmurakami »

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,...

wow, I (like many others, obviously) have experienced many of the things described in the msdn blog article you linked to, yet never really thought critically that those things don't have to be there!

Things are going to look different to me now when I'm on a windows machine.

Re: Path texts my entire phonebook at 6 AM

#260

Post by thisjustinm »

bitcartel wrote: post #107
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?

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.
Post reply on HN