Charlie Miller was thrown out of the developer program, so apparently that bit worked anyway.
No, Charlie Miller was tossed out because he was caught LATER. His app got through the vetting process AND the sandbox. As did the one by the recent researchers, which used a similar technique.
"He didn't expected such a fuss about it, right now we can see the one and only Mark Shuttleworth doing damage control."
Further, he is trying to give the impression that they are being generous by not taking action, and that they could have taken legal action had they wanted to.
But the truth is that it is a US site, what it is doing is perfectly legal under US law ("fair use"), and Ubuntu has not a leg to stand on.
This article is a gigantic mess of exaggerated, distorted BS.
Among its very many flaws, is that it makes the mistake of equating actions of the government with the "will of the people"... suggesting that government is acting as a reflection of citizen fear. When in reality, the opposite is true: the government has been trying to rule the populace through fear, using the largely manufactured bugaboo of terrorism.
The article was obviously written by someone who (A) doesn't know much about America, or (B) doesn't like it. Or both.
As just one simple element of proof, consider: most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing, and are trying to stop it.
Well, no, I was thinking about places more like Denali or Noatak, where you can be "30 miles from another human being". Fairbanks is about 1,000 per square mile.
"What do you think of the idea of requiring anything imported into the US for general sale or consumption to be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here? "
I think the idea has merit. As you have implied, the current situation illustrates the hypocrisy of the EPA, because they know their regulations aren't solving anything, they're just exporting problems to other places and other people.
I am all for free trade, but only if it really is. That means where possible, things should be made under the same conditions and regulations if they are to be imported. Anything else is not really free trade... it is economic advantage to others, but at the expense of worse working conditions and more pollution. Which still affects us all.
By the way: I should add that I am usually polite to people who are polite to me. Often they have not been. I have been known to get downright uncivil on Slashdot at times, but I only when I was provoked. And there are a few habitual, egregious provokers with whom I have little patience. They know who they are. But I will even remain polite with them, as long as they afford me the same courtesy.
On the other hand, if I think someone is just plain wrong, I don't have any problem saying so. But I make an effort to make my point logically, not insultingly. Unless they have already set that tone.
Anyway, I think the idea is a good one, and that it makes both environmental and economic sense.
Did you pay attention on the context ? This article is using temporary fire ban due to localized air quality issue to make a point as if it was ubiquitous and without limit... I'm sorry, but I am pro-freedom, but freedom in the US has become licentiousness. If every household of Seattle burn its Xmas tree, shit will happen. Freedom is no excuse for plain stupidity.
Your "context" is assumed and is nowhere stated explicitly in print.
I spent a bit of time searching. It appears that this has been reported over and over, for the last year or so. But even the source article linked to by TFA does not give any specific information or citatations.
So I spent some time on the EPA website. I did not find any mention of anything like this. Though I admit that I may not be searching properly, or maybe they just haven't published anything about it on their website.
So it all could be an alarmist red herring. But that still has little to do with my assertions -- based on long personal experience -- that (A) a "one-size fits all" approach is probably not rational, (B) the EPA often IS irrational about its regulations and standards, and (C) they generally can't be trusted.
What concerns me much more is that there are a billion people in India, China, Africa, etc. who are all doing the same thing and no one is doing anything about it.
Sure. But again, as I say: I wasn't referring to China or New York City. Having the same rules in a bustling metropolis and in a remote wilderness simply doesn't make sense for some things. There is a concentration at which most pollution (like wood stove smoke) will be easily dealt with by nature (trees, water vapor, etc.). And there is a concentration above which it will not. There are also, of course, those things that are harmful in just about any amount, but I don't think this is one of those.
If that means I can't buy as many plastic gadgets, I'll survive.
Plastics are not inherently a major problem, if dealt with properly. Most plastics are recyclable, in one way or another. If you want to worry about pollution, gasoline is a far worse culprit than plastics are (or than they need to be, anyway). The thing about plastics is that most of the solutions are already known, and are not that difficult. We just aren't doing them enough.
We basically agree. I just wanted to point out that I have had many close encounters with the EPA, and there are several downright bonehead EPA things going on in my area right now. And I do mean bonehead, health-endangering things that would not be occurring if the EPA had not become involved. But as I say, for personal policy reasons I won't be describing them.
If you make it a policy to not trust them, and not take their word at face value, but instead research issues yourself, you will be doing yourself a favor. They certainly have done some good things. But some other things they have done -- or are currently proposing to do -- would curl your hair if you looked into them.
"To answer your question: I'm just tired of apologists who like to pretend that all taxes are bad because they believe in it. And they will use any doublethink necessary to argue so.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is so far from anything I've ever written on Slashdot! It's good to have a good laugh once in a while.
"So I like to shove their faces into the absurdity of their doublethink in hopes of eventually getting their own bullshit meters to tilt enough to see through their own doublethink. I call it a good deed of the day."
I might actually agree with you, if (A) it were justified, and (B) what you were actually doing really resembled that in some significant way.
There is something to be said for being a responsible citizen of Earth and not trashing the place.
Of course. But consider: I was saying that where it does make a real difference (lots of people in large cities) is very different from a few people, widely dispersed. The former pollutes a lot. The latter does not.
While I am as against polluting the environment as anyone, we have to be rational about what we allow and what we do not. And believe me: I used to work for an engineering company that worked closely with the EPA, and EPA's decisions are often NOT rational, and often (believe it or not) not in your best interest.
It MUST be kept in mind that the EPA is a gigantic government bureaucracy, and acts like one. Its foremost and constant goal is to expand its own size, reach, and power. And if it has to do that at the expense of YOUR environment quality and good health, they can, have, and will.
I could give you several excellent, current, real-world examples of that. But unfortunately that would tell people where I live, which is something I do not do on Slashdot.
And by the way: that copy was from last year. But if they've updated it since, I sure as hell haven't heard about it. Others were complaining about it online this last August.
It's you who's mistaken, not the other poster. The Apps Store Guidelines do not say that. You haven't read them. I have.
REALLY??? Well you sure haven't read them very well!
2.11 Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them.
Apple has been notorious for rejecting apps that "duplicate functionality", especially when it is their own apps that are being emulated. They have been quite selective in their enforcement. Ask any developer who ever got a rejection for violating rule 2.11.
"Recent? You are linking to one that's 18 months ago, and one that's 2 years ago. Both dealt with permanently soon after discovery."
Of course they were. Any company worth its salt deals with malware right away. That's no guarantee that there isn't more of the same still out there. Odds are overwhelming that there is.
To assert that "there is no malware" in iOS is just ridiculous. There isn't a sane security researcher on the planet who would agree with that. Yet AGAIN, just recently, somebody got a trojan through the app approval process. Big deal, you say? Well, it is in a way because it is the same same basic technique used by one of those guys you were talking about from two years ago.
iOS is nice if you like handholding and don't want to bother to deal with security yourself. But I don't like handholding, I am a tinkerer, and I don't have any qualms about taking care of my own security.
I'm not being obtuse; you're refusing to see the truth.
Apple's "sandbox" is a set of rules that many developers HAVE SHOWN is easy to get around, by the expedient of getting around them, and getting caught. Many more undoubtedly have not yet been caught.
And other than that sandbox, there is only one other significant difference between the Android and iOS ecosystems: the arbitrary and capricious pre-approval process for App Store apps. And again, I emphasize: apps that phone home without permission have gotten past that approval process.
Period.
You want "security" for your locations services? With a free app, and a vanilla Android phone, straight off the shelf, I can make my phone location services tell all those folks that my GPS coordinates are literally anything I want. 30,000 feet over London if I like. Try that with an Apple.
There were similar apps for earlier versions of iOS, but not 6 and 7 IIRC. Android, on the other hand, is getting freer, not more locked down.
"4.1 Apps that do not notify and obtain user consent before collecting, transmitting, or using location data will be rejected"
See, the difference there is the "user consent" bit. Repeat: Apple's guidelines do NOT require apps to not phone home. They DO require consent. Two different things.
My main point, however, is that apps DO phone home, without user consent, and a number of them passed through the app approval process. Hell, it was all over the internet.
a) It's a poorer system. It's pre-approval, on mass, which means the user doesn't know why an app needs access to resources before approving them.
Its the same system. Apple ALSO does not require them to not phone home. It just asks for your consent first. That's exactly what Android does.
iOS seeks approval at the time of requiring the resource, enabling the user to know what the resource is needed for.
Granted... in most cases. Many Android apps do that too. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I repeat: those are Apple's GUIDELINES. A great many apps have been caught doing it DESPITE the guidelines, and they didn't ask for approval. You see, that part is controlled by the developer, and if the developer does not wish to seek permission, they just do it anyway... despite Apple's guidelines. They might get caught during the approval process... but many have not.
Don't confuse rules with what people actually do, or theory for reality.
b) There is no such limitation on Google on Android, because Google don't have to do it from within an app, and therefore not within a sandbox.
This makes no sense. They don't have to do WHAT "within an app"?
Every app that uses a system service has to be programmed to use that service. That's within the app. And that is true of both iOS and Android. Apple "requires" apps to get permission to use a service... but many programmers have proven that it is possible to get around those rules. That is also "within the app". Many Android apps also ask for permission to use a system service. That's "in the app" too.
Apple's sandbox DOES NOT do much to protect against apps that want to break the rules. The only enforcement they have is their pre-approval process, which is notoriously arbitrary and flaky, and which has approved a lot of applications that DID phone home without users' knowledge, and which weren't caught doing it until much later.
If I learn that Google is using my Waze location data for anything but the app, then it's time to move on to another app.
I admit that it doesn't look good. What I don't get is why Google doesn't understand they can destroy a brand just by acquiring it? They've become evil, and the things they touch have turned evil.
My whole point was about 3rd-party apps. Hell, Apple's stock apps "phone home" to Apple, too! The only difference there is that people trust Apple more than Google. Mistakenly, in my opinion.
Oh, don't misunderstand me. In a "societal good" contest, I'd take Apple over Google any day. But they aren't the Saints that many people seem to expect them to be.
But back to the point: to the best of my knowledge the Developer Guidelines still say an app can be rejected if it "duplicates the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
Don't blame me if Apple is flaky about enforcing it. The App Store is rather notorious for being flaky about its approvals.
It is you who don't know what you're talking about.
Apple's rules for app store apps say that an app that is allowed in their store cannot "duplicate the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
So if you make an app like iTunes, but is better than iTunes, Apple will reject it because it "duplicates functionality".
It's in the Developer Guidelines. Go read them. Oh, wait... you have to pay for a developer's license before they'll let you read it.
You're confusoing two different things. App sandbox (on Android) with App Store Approvals (on iOS).
No, I'm not "confusing" or "ignoring" anything.
Listen up: recent scandals have demonstrated that Apple's "sandbox" DOESN'T WORK for things like this, as Chalie Miller and a lot of others found out.
Ultimately, keeping withing Apple's "sandbox" is up to the developer, and if you have a malicious developer, it makes no difference.
That was part of my point. No, app developer CAN'T do a lot more on Android than they do on iOS. Lots of people keep saying that but the distinction is illusory. The ONLY difference is that on iOS, they're slightly more likely to get caught because of the app vetting that Apple does.
Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Miller was thrown out of the developer program, so apparently that bit worked anyway.
No, Charlie Miller was tossed out because he was caught LATER. His app got through the vetting process AND the sandbox. As did the one by the recent researchers, which used a similar technique.
"Which part of "up to a maximum of $500,000" did you not understand?"
What really makes this a joke is that sorting out and turning over the data could actually cost them almost as much.
One would think it would be more efficient, in the long run, to use the urea as fertilizer.
"He didn't expected such a fuss about it, right now we can see the one and only Mark Shuttleworth doing damage control."
Further, he is trying to give the impression that they are being generous by not taking action, and that they could have taken legal action had they wanted to.
But the truth is that it is a US site, what it is doing is perfectly legal under US law ("fair use"), and Ubuntu has not a leg to stand on.
This article is a gigantic mess of exaggerated, distorted BS.
Among its very many flaws, is that it makes the mistake of equating actions of the government with the "will of the people"... suggesting that government is acting as a reflection of citizen fear. When in reality, the opposite is true: the government has been trying to rule the populace through fear, using the largely manufactured bugaboo of terrorism.
The article was obviously written by someone who (A) doesn't know much about America, or (B) doesn't like it. Or both.
As just one simple element of proof, consider: most Americans don't like much of what their government is doing, and are trying to stop it.
You mean in Alaska like Fairbanks?
Well, no, I was thinking about places more like Denali or Noatak, where you can be "30 miles from another human being". Fairbanks is about 1,000 per square mile.
"What do you think of the idea of requiring anything imported into the US for general sale or consumption to be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here? "
I think the idea has merit. As you have implied, the current situation illustrates the hypocrisy of the EPA, because they know their regulations aren't solving anything, they're just exporting problems to other places and other people.
I am all for free trade, but only if it really is. That means where possible, things should be made under the same conditions and regulations if they are to be imported. Anything else is not really free trade... it is economic advantage to others, but at the expense of worse working conditions and more pollution. Which still affects us all.
By the way: I should add that I am usually polite to people who are polite to me. Often they have not been. I have been known to get downright uncivil on Slashdot at times, but I only when I was provoked. And there are a few habitual, egregious provokers with whom I have little patience. They know who they are. But I will even remain polite with them, as long as they afford me the same courtesy.
On the other hand, if I think someone is just plain wrong, I don't have any problem saying so. But I make an effort to make my point logically, not insultingly. Unless they have already set that tone.
Anyway, I think the idea is a good one, and that it makes both environmental and economic sense.
Did you pay attention on the context ? This article is using temporary fire ban due to localized air quality issue to make a point as if it was ubiquitous and without limit... I'm sorry, but I am pro-freedom, but freedom in the US has become licentiousness. If every household of Seattle burn its Xmas tree, shit will happen. Freedom is no excuse for plain stupidity.
Your "context" is assumed and is nowhere stated explicitly in print.
I spent a bit of time searching. It appears that this has been reported over and over, for the last year or so. But even the source article linked to by TFA does not give any specific information or citatations.
So I spent some time on the EPA website. I did not find any mention of anything like this. Though I admit that I may not be searching properly, or maybe they just haven't published anything about it on their website.
So it all could be an alarmist red herring. But that still has little to do with my assertions -- based on long personal experience -- that (A) a "one-size fits all" approach is probably not rational, (B) the EPA often IS irrational about its regulations and standards, and (C) they generally can't be trusted.
What concerns me much more is that there are a billion people in India, China, Africa, etc. who are all doing the same thing and no one is doing anything about it.
Sure. But again, as I say: I wasn't referring to China or New York City. Having the same rules in a bustling metropolis and in a remote wilderness simply doesn't make sense for some things. There is a concentration at which most pollution (like wood stove smoke) will be easily dealt with by nature (trees, water vapor, etc.). And there is a concentration above which it will not. There are also, of course, those things that are harmful in just about any amount, but I don't think this is one of those.
If that means I can't buy as many plastic gadgets, I'll survive.
Plastics are not inherently a major problem, if dealt with properly. Most plastics are recyclable, in one way or another. If you want to worry about pollution, gasoline is a far worse culprit than plastics are (or than they need to be, anyway). The thing about plastics is that most of the solutions are already known, and are not that difficult. We just aren't doing them enough.
We basically agree. I just wanted to point out that I have had many close encounters with the EPA, and there are several downright bonehead EPA things going on in my area right now. And I do mean bonehead, health-endangering things that would not be occurring if the EPA had not become involved. But as I say, for personal policy reasons I won't be describing them.
If you make it a policy to not trust them, and not take their word at face value, but instead research issues yourself, you will be doing yourself a favor. They certainly have done some good things. But some other things they have done -- or are currently proposing to do -- would curl your hair if you looked into them.
My link to an example of what I was saying was modded down?
Fanboi modders, that's pretty low even for you.
"To answer your question: I'm just tired of apologists who like to pretend that all taxes are bad because they believe in it. And they will use any doublethink necessary to argue so.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is so far from anything I've ever written on Slashdot! It's good to have a good laugh once in a while.
"So I like to shove their faces into the absurdity of their doublethink in hopes of eventually getting their own bullshit meters to tilt enough to see through their own doublethink. I call it a good deed of the day."
I might actually agree with you, if (A) it were justified, and (B) what you were actually doing really resembled that in some significant way.
But as it stands, I think you're delusional.
There is something to be said for being a responsible citizen of Earth and not trashing the place.
Of course. But consider: I was saying that where it does make a real difference (lots of people in large cities) is very different from a few people, widely dispersed. The former pollutes a lot. The latter does not.
While I am as against polluting the environment as anyone, we have to be rational about what we allow and what we do not. And believe me: I used to work for an engineering company that worked closely with the EPA, and EPA's decisions are often NOT rational, and often (believe it or not) not in your best interest.
It MUST be kept in mind that the EPA is a gigantic government bureaucracy, and acts like one. Its foremost and constant goal is to expand its own size, reach, and power. And if it has to do that at the expense of YOUR environment quality and good health, they can, have, and will.
I could give you several excellent, current, real-world examples of that. But unfortunately that would tell people where I live, which is something I do not do on Slashdot.
Um... "nearest other human", I mean.
Damn. And I tried so hard to not give myself away.
Hey... you live in a big city? I can see a local ordinance banning wood smoke.
But in lots of other places? Give me a break. Does this apply to Alaska, too? When you might easily be 30 miles from the nearest human?
This is none of the FEDERAL government's damned business. It's a classic example of something that can and should be locally controlled.
I am so sick and tired of Fed overreach and having their noses up our asses all the time! This is another example of WAY TOO FAR.
And by the way: that copy was from last year. But if they've updated it since, I sure as hell haven't heard about it. Others were complaining about it online this last August.
It's you who's mistaken, not the other poster. The Apps Store Guidelines do not say that. You haven't read them. I have.
REALLY??? Well you sure haven't read them very well!
2.11 Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them.
Apple has been notorious for rejecting apps that "duplicate functionality", especially when it is their own apps that are being emulated. They have been quite selective in their enforcement. Ask any developer who ever got a rejection for violating rule 2.11.
There was a link missing in my reply.
The security researchers who recently passed a trojan through iOS App Store approval process.
As I say, they used the same basic approach as that guy 2 years ago. Or 18 months, or whatever it was.
"Recent? You are linking to one that's 18 months ago, and one that's 2 years ago. Both dealt with permanently soon after discovery."
Of course they were. Any company worth its salt deals with malware right away. That's no guarantee that there isn't more of the same still out there. Odds are overwhelming that there is.
To assert that "there is no malware" in iOS is just ridiculous. There isn't a sane security researcher on the planet who would agree with that. Yet AGAIN, just recently, somebody got a trojan through the app approval process. Big deal, you say? Well, it is in a way because it is the same same basic technique used by one of those guys you were talking about from two years ago.
I repeat: I like Apple products. But one thing I am not is a fanboi. I am realistic about capabilities of the products. And I do my research. Yes, iOS has some safeguards that Android does not. BUT... whether those minor differences really equal "security" is a matter for debate.
iOS is nice if you like handholding and don't want to bother to deal with security yourself. But I don't like handholding, I am a tinkerer, and I don't have any qualms about taking care of my own security.
I'm not being obtuse; you're refusing to see the truth.
Apple's "sandbox" is a set of rules that many developers HAVE SHOWN is easy to get around, by the expedient of getting around them, and getting caught. Many more undoubtedly have not yet been caught.
And other than that sandbox, there is only one other significant difference between the Android and iOS ecosystems: the arbitrary and capricious pre-approval process for App Store apps. And again, I emphasize: apps that phone home without permission have gotten past that approval process.
Period.
You want "security" for your locations services? With a free app, and a vanilla Android phone, straight off the shelf, I can make my phone location services tell all those folks that my GPS coordinates are literally anything I want. 30,000 feet over London if I like. Try that with an Apple.
There were similar apps for earlier versions of iOS, but not 6 and 7 IIRC. Android, on the other hand, is getting freer, not more locked down.
"4.1 Apps that do not notify and obtain user consent before collecting, transmitting, or using location data will be rejected"
See, the difference there is the "user consent" bit. Repeat: Apple's guidelines do NOT require apps to not phone home. They DO require consent. Two different things.
My main point, however, is that apps DO phone home, without user consent, and a number of them passed through the app approval process. Hell, it was all over the internet.
a) It's a poorer system. It's pre-approval, on mass, which means the user doesn't know why an app needs access to resources before approving them.
Its the same system. Apple ALSO does not require them to not phone home. It just asks for your consent first. That's exactly what Android does.
iOS seeks approval at the time of requiring the resource, enabling the user to know what the resource is needed for.
Granted... in most cases. Many Android apps do that too. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I repeat: those are Apple's GUIDELINES. A great many apps have been caught doing it DESPITE the guidelines, and they didn't ask for approval. You see, that part is controlled by the developer, and if the developer does not wish to seek permission, they just do it anyway... despite Apple's guidelines. They might get caught during the approval process... but many have not.
Don't confuse rules with what people actually do, or theory for reality.
b) There is no such limitation on Google on Android, because Google don't have to do it from within an app, and therefore not within a sandbox.
This makes no sense. They don't have to do WHAT "within an app"?
Every app that uses a system service has to be programmed to use that service. That's within the app. And that is true of both iOS and Android. Apple "requires" apps to get permission to use a service... but many programmers have proven that it is possible to get around those rules. That is also "within the app". Many Android apps also ask for permission to use a system service. That's "in the app" too.
Apple's sandbox DOES NOT do much to protect against apps that want to break the rules. The only enforcement they have is their pre-approval process, which is notoriously arbitrary and flaky, and which has approved a lot of applications that DID phone home without users' knowledge, and which weren't caught doing it until much later.
Do I really need to explain what I meant?
If I learn that Google is using my Waze location data for anything but the app, then it's time to move on to another app.
I admit that it doesn't look good. What I don't get is why Google doesn't understand they can destroy a brand just by acquiring it? They've become evil, and the things they touch have turned evil.
I'm not a Mac hater. Hell, I develop on a Mac! By choice.
But given the 2 major phone ecologies, I chose Android mainly because I don't much care for the iOS "walled garden". It's as simple as that.
But... please elaborate on these "falsehoods" to which you refer. What are they, specifically?
My whole point was about 3rd-party apps. Hell, Apple's stock apps "phone home" to Apple, too! The only difference there is that people trust Apple more than Google. Mistakenly, in my opinion.
Oh, don't misunderstand me. In a "societal good" contest, I'd take Apple over Google any day. But they aren't the Saints that many people seem to expect them to be.
But back to the point: to the best of my knowledge the Developer Guidelines still say an app can be rejected if it "duplicates the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
Don't blame me if Apple is flaky about enforcing it. The App Store is rather notorious for being flaky about its approvals.
It is you who don't know what you're talking about.
Apple's rules for app store apps say that an app that is allowed in their store cannot "duplicate the functionality" of one of the major iOS components.
So if you make an app like iTunes, but is better than iTunes, Apple will reject it because it "duplicates functionality".
It's in the Developer Guidelines. Go read them. Oh, wait... you have to pay for a developer's license before they'll let you read it.
You're confusoing two different things. App sandbox (on Android) with App Store Approvals (on iOS).
No, I'm not "confusing" or "ignoring" anything.
Listen up: recent scandals have demonstrated that Apple's "sandbox" DOESN'T WORK for things like this, as Chalie Miller and a lot of others found out.
Ultimately, keeping withing Apple's "sandbox" is up to the developer, and if you have a malicious developer, it makes no difference.
That was part of my point. No, app developer CAN'T do a lot more on Android than they do on iOS. Lots of people keep saying that but the distinction is illusory. The ONLY difference is that on iOS, they're slightly more likely to get caught because of the app vetting that Apple does.