If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.
Just a few:
The city improperly shortened the timing on the yellow light.
It would have made sense if the rest of my post had made it as well. Odd. Maybe I was high and didn't get my whole thought out? Whatever, it wouldn't be funny now.
In other news my Biology teacher thinks that Beowulf is a Shakespearean play. Something tells me that a Spanish teacher isn't an expert on analyzing statistics, hence why he teaches Spanish, not math or science.
But they shouldn't be. That's why you have so many problems with SQL injection [xkcd.com] attacks, for example.
Dealing with SQL injection or XSS certainly doesn't require engineering expertise. It only requires common sense.
You need to encode data in a specific way to embed it in some other data which is under a specific format under which some characters have special meaning. The fact that most web developers don't even understand this -- or just barely enough to apply it to SQL injection and XSS because they've been told to -- says wonders about competence in the field.
See here. This is how the local security on Android works
That is how it was intended to work. Not how it actually does work.
Did you bother to read the article or even the summary? You seemed to take the inflammatory headline and run with it without actually verifying if it is true.
Which is the EXACT point the OP made! There is no Gatekeeper for Google Apps. Their policy states that certain apps ask for permission because some, like this one, didn't.
But then again, you're doing this on your "beleif" so actual fact does not matter.
I provided the links to back my points.
Found that "expressly stated going to sell your data" Apple quote yet? Or, is it... your belief?
If you have a wifi network broadcasting I can see it without going onto your property and looking inside anything.
So, you didn't look inside the frame, see the recipient MAC and know that it wasn't addressed to you? You actively came to my house for the express purpose of listening to MY wireless network, that you KNEW was mine, that you brought special equipment for the sole purpose of listening to MY network, looked at my network, saw that none of the traffic besides the general broadcast messages were meant for you, saved them, and still try to claim... what? It wasn't your fault? You accidentally setup a packet sniffer to record my network traffic?
I don't have to lock my car for it to be illegal or immoral for you to take it.
Do you understand how consumer wireless networks work?
Yes, do you understand how morality works?
Apple expressly said it intends to sell your data
Really? Where? cite the word "sell" please.
(share with third parties)
Ah, see now that is what I read. Sounds to me like they're going to share their (non-personally identifiable btw, unlike Google), data with partners such as advertisers and, god forbid, applications on your phone.
Oh, and one last thing.
Care to cite them.
Sure (emphasis mine, header bolding theirs):
Your choices
Certain of our products and services allow you to opt-out of certain information gathering and sharing or to opt-out of certain products, services, or features.
All android applications tell you on installation if they use the location API.
You believe they do.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, spit it out. Otherwise, STFU.
I already did. Google's published privacy policy. Check it out. It very distinctly uses the word certain, as in "certain applications provide you the option to opt-out."
They say such, no doubt, because they don't control the apps and don't want to be held liable when an app doesn't ask.
The OP claimed there was no "gatekeeper" informing you when an app wants your location data.
You claimed that statement was "completely untrue."
Yet you still have not mentioned who that gatekeeper is, since Google's own policy states that only sometimes do you have the option of blocking the data gathering.
Again, Google's policy agrees with me. What evidence do you have that EVERY app asks?
Context is relevent. The Google and Apple issues are only marginally related. Google collected informatoin
Without permission (personal or legal) or warning.
that is as visible as the front of your house and got slapped for it.
Its as visible as the inside of my mailbox. Also illegal to read, copy, and store.
Apple has changed the terms and conditions without consultation after the sale.
Which is the same thing every other company does, including Google, but is magically only a problem when Apple does it.
The fact that their policy still protects you more than Google's is just a little bonus right?
By the fact that you either want a Google defence modded down or an bad Apple defence modded up I suggest the fanboy is as close as the nearest mirror.
No, wanting the same argument used in similar situations where the only significant difference is the company being defended to be modded the same does not make me a fanboy.
It merely shows I have the ability to recognize Apple is not as bad as people here think, and Google is not as special.
Apple at least provides an opt-out, does not collect personally identifiable information, and ensures your privacy is protected by a single policy. The only problem with their policy is the fact that they changed it after the fact... which is irritating, but nothing surprising or special.
And before you say Google provides opt-out, read their policy very carefully. There are certain points you need to pay attention to.
Who tells you that might be happening if you have an Android phone?
The Android Operating system tells you on installation.
Most of the time.
Or if you install a browser that enables the geolocation services of HTML 5 on your PC?
Well, that browser is also an application - and android tells you on installation that it can access (amongst others), the following permission: "Your Location: coarse (network based) location, fine (GPS) location."
Maybe. Not always. See, you have to read the privacy statement to find the part that says (this is a direct quote, emphasis mine) "Certain of our products and services allow you to opt-out of certain information gathering and sharing or to opt-out of certain products, services, or features".
Ya, see, you also need to check your carrier's privacy policy. Google doesn't care what they do with your personally identifiable information. They state that also in their policy.
No one. They don't have to. They can't really, because there isn't a "gatekeeper" controlling it all.
Don't believe everything the iPhone fanboys tell you. The above statement is totally incorrect.
Apple acts as the "gatekeeper" for all iPhone apps. Who is the Android equivalent? Google? The App creator? Your wireless carrier?
So, Google's policy is: gather personally identifiable information on you, MAYBE let you opt-out, and no single privacy policy dictating what can be done with your information. Ya, I can totally understand why you prefer Google's policy.
Those people were transmitting those passwords and e-mails in the clear over a broadcast medium (ie. to everybody in range who was listening). Google was in range and listening and heard them. That's like saying "I was shouting my password at the top of my lungs on the streetcorner and someone overheard me and wrote it down!": yes there's a problem, but it's not with the person who wrote the password down. It's with you, for thinking you can shout things in public and somehow miraculously have them remain private and confidential.
Except listening to a wireless network, and recording the traffic, takes effort. A better analogy is google driving around making copies of everything in people's mailboxes. Well, if you don't want your letters copied, you should have put a lock on your mailbox, right?
It's more like yelling at your neighbor across the street, and then getting upset when someone driving by overhears it. With unencrypted traffic on a wireless network you are quite literally broadcasting information to the world. The argument that someone is the intended recipient and everyone else needs to pretend they didn't hear it is bullshit.
Actually it's more like me having a letter in my mailbox, and you drive by and copy it.
There was nothing accidental about what google recorded. You have to make an effort to "see" wireless traffic, view the contents, and record it.
The argument about the intended recipient is not b.s. Just because my yard is unlocked doesn't mean you can use my pool. Just because I don't have a lock on my mailbox doesn't mean you can come over and make copies of everything that gets delivered to me. You know damn well that wireless network is not yours. You know the traffic on it is not for you. You know the email was not for you... but you still opened your computer, searched for a network, connected to it, viewed the traffic, and saved it.
You have to make an effort to hear and record unsecured wireless traffic. There was nothing accidental about it.
You're trying to say I should have put a lock on my mailbox to stop you from just "accidentally walking by and making copies of all my letters."
I guess you didn't click through and look at the website?
See, like so many other articles reposted around, this one is misleading.
The site is to demo new technologies that are supported by Safari.
The page is to demo Safari. Kind of misses the point to use another browser, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod + Interesting? I'm not sure what is funnier: the joke, you missing the joke, or the slashdot modders missing that you missed the joke.
There are legitimate cases for bricking a phone remotely.
I mean, tobacco is ACTUALLY addictive and no one is suing them.
What have you been smoking and can I have some?
If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.
Just a few:
And the relevance of that is what, pray tell?
It would have made sense if the rest of my post had made it as well. Odd. Maybe I was high and didn't get my whole thought out? Whatever, it wouldn't be funny now.
In other news my Biology teacher thinks that Beowulf is a Shakespearean play. Something tells me that a Spanish teacher isn't an expert on analyzing statistics, hence why he teaches Spanish, not math or science.
His entire report was in English
Dealing with SQL injection or XSS certainly doesn't require engineering expertise. It only requires common sense.
You need to encode data in a specific way to embed it in some other data which is under a specific format under which some characters have special meaning. The fact that most web developers don't even understand this -- or just barely enough to apply it to SQL injection and XSS because they've been told to -- says wonders about competence in the field.
Ah yes, the "Nerd Hierarchy".
marketing < sales < finance < sanitation < management < support < web developer < gui developer < software engineer < "real" engineer < whateverthefuckyoudo.
Your ego is only surpassed by your ignorance and the laughs it brings.
Quick thinking there slick. Maybe in another couple months you can start sending some equipment to stop the leak.
Ok. Think what you like idiot.
Yet you still have not mentioned who that gatekeeper is,
Wow, you just don't get it do you? The gatekeeper is not a who, but an it - it is the operating system's own security model that enforces it,
... Standing next to an open gate waving to people as they walk by is hardly acting as a gatekeeper.
Link pls.
So, you're arguing the policy with me without even having the ability to find it?
No, I'm done.
Lol wrong thread for the last part. Thats what I get for trying to set 2 ppl straight at the same time.
See here. This is how the local security on Android works
That is how it was intended to work. Not how it actually does work.
Did you bother to read the article or even the summary? You seemed to take the inflammatory headline and run with it without actually verifying if it is true.
I did read it. I apparently read more than you because I got down to this link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10162929-83.html
Which is the EXACT point the OP made! There is no Gatekeeper for Google Apps. Their policy states that certain apps ask for permission because some, like this one, didn't.
But then again, you're doing this on your "beleif" so actual fact does not matter.
I provided the links to back my points.
Found that "expressly stated going to sell your data" Apple quote yet? Or, is it... your belief?
If you have a wifi network broadcasting I can see it without going onto your property and looking inside anything.
So, you didn't look inside the frame, see the recipient MAC and know that it wasn't addressed to you? ... what? It wasn't your fault? You accidentally setup a packet sniffer to record my network traffic?
You actively came to my house for the express purpose of listening to MY wireless network, that you KNEW was mine, that you brought special equipment for the sole purpose of listening to MY network, looked at my network, saw that none of the traffic besides the general broadcast messages were meant for you, saved them, and still try to claim
I don't have to lock my car for it to be illegal or immoral for you to take it.
Do you understand how consumer wireless networks work?
Yes, do you understand how morality works?
Apple expressly said it intends to sell your data
Really? Where? cite the word "sell" please.
(share with third parties)
Ah, see now that is what I read. Sounds to me like they're going to share their (non-personally identifiable btw, unlike Google), data with partners such as advertisers and, god forbid, applications on your phone.
Oh, and one last thing.
Care to cite them.
Sure (emphasis mine, header bolding theirs):
Your choices
And that is directly from http://www.google.com/mobile/android/privacy.html
Why use the modifier "certain", if you mean "all"?
All android applications tell you on installation if they use the location API.
You believe they do.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, spit it out. Otherwise, STFU.
I already did. Google's published privacy policy. Check it out. It very distinctly uses the word certain, as in "certain applications provide you the option to opt-out."
They say such, no doubt, because they don't control the apps and don't want to be held liable when an app doesn't ask.
The OP claimed there was no "gatekeeper" informing you when an app wants your location data.
You claimed that statement was "completely untrue."
Yet you still have not mentioned who that gatekeeper is, since Google's own policy states that only sometimes do you have the option of blocking the data gathering.
Again, Google's policy agrees with me. What evidence do you have that EVERY app asks?
Most of the time? Can you give a concrete example of an instance where you are not told on installation that the application can read your location?
Don't need to. We're talking about what the respective privacy policies allow.
Context is relevent. The Google and Apple issues are only marginally related. Google collected informatoin
Without permission (personal or legal) or warning.
that is as visible as the front of your house and got slapped for it.
Its as visible as the inside of my mailbox. Also illegal to read, copy, and store.
Apple has changed the terms and conditions without consultation after the sale.
Which is the same thing every other company does, including Google, but is magically only a problem when Apple does it.
The fact that their policy still protects you more than Google's is just a little bonus right?
By the fact that you either want a Google defence modded down or an bad Apple defence modded up I suggest the fanboy is as close as the nearest mirror.
No, wanting the same argument used in similar situations where the only significant difference is the company being defended to be modded the same does not make me a fanboy.
It merely shows I have the ability to recognize Apple is not as bad as people here think, and Google is not as special.
Story posted today seems to back my belief... http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/23/1429249/Fifth-of-Android-Apps-Expose-Private-Data
Apple at least provides an opt-out, does not collect personally identifiable information, and ensures your privacy is protected by a single policy. The only problem with their policy is the fact that they changed it after the fact... which is irritating, but nothing surprising or special.
And before you say Google provides opt-out, read their policy very carefully. There are certain points you need to pay attention to.
I've heard it will introduce Ius primae noctis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
The worrying part will be reading how Apple fanbois will be very proud of having Jobs "test ride" their brides.
Better than the Google fanboys. They're still wondering how their gfs got pregnant.
Who tells you that might be happening if you have an Android phone?
The Android Operating system tells you on installation.
Most of the time.
Or if you install a browser that enables the geolocation services of HTML 5 on your PC?
Well, that browser is also an application - and android tells you on installation that it can access (amongst others), the following permission: "Your Location: coarse (network based) location, fine (GPS) location."
Maybe. Not always. See, you have to read the privacy statement to find the part that says (this is a direct quote, emphasis mine) "Certain of our products and services allow you to opt-out of certain information gathering and sharing or to opt-out of certain products, services, or features".
Ya, see, you also need to check your carrier's privacy policy. Google doesn't care what they do with your personally identifiable information. They state that also in their policy.
No one. They don't have to. They can't really, because there isn't a "gatekeeper" controlling it all.
Don't believe everything the iPhone fanboys tell you. The above statement is totally incorrect.
Apple acts as the "gatekeeper" for all iPhone apps. Who is the Android equivalent? Google? The App creator? Your wireless carrier?
So, Google's policy is: gather personally identifiable information on you, MAYBE let you opt-out, and no single privacy policy dictating what can be done with your information. Ya, I can totally understand why you prefer Google's policy.
Whilst I expected fanboys to come rushing to the defence of Apple, I also expected something a little more original then a copy/paste troll.
What I find "amazing" is that the people moderating have no idea the post is a copy/paste.
So, the exact same argument used to defend Google: +5 insightful.
Defend Apple, -1 Troll...
Huh. Who are the fanboys?
Real geeks are too busy to have families
Oh THAT is the virgin geek excuse. Got it.
cloud computing!
(kill me now)
You mean mainframe + terminal?
Those people were transmitting those passwords and e-mails in the clear over a broadcast medium (ie. to everybody in range who was listening). Google was in range and listening and heard them. That's like saying "I was shouting my password at the top of my lungs on the streetcorner and someone overheard me and wrote it down!": yes there's a problem, but it's not with the person who wrote the password down. It's with you, for thinking you can shout things in public and somehow miraculously have them remain private and confidential.
Except listening to a wireless network, and recording the traffic, takes effort. A better analogy is google driving around making copies of everything in people's mailboxes. Well, if you don't want your letters copied, you should have put a lock on your mailbox, right?
If you don't want anyone picking up your wifi traffic you encrypt it. Welcome to the year 2000.
When your daughter gets raped, be sure and testify that it was her fault for wearing a mini-skirt.
It's more like yelling at your neighbor across the street, and then getting upset when someone driving by overhears it. With unencrypted traffic on a wireless network you are quite literally broadcasting information to the world. The argument that someone is the intended recipient and everyone else needs to pretend they didn't hear it is bullshit.
Actually it's more like me having a letter in my mailbox, and you drive by and copy it.
There was nothing accidental about what google recorded. You have to make an effort to "see" wireless traffic, view the contents, and record it.
The argument about the intended recipient is not b.s. Just because my yard is unlocked doesn't mean you can use my pool. Just because I don't have a lock on my mailbox doesn't mean you can come over and make copies of everything that gets delivered to me. You know damn well that wireless network is not yours. You know the traffic on it is not for you. You know the email was not for you... but you still opened your computer, searched for a network, connected to it, viewed the traffic, and saved it.
You have to make an effort to hear and record unsecured wireless traffic. There was nothing accidental about it.
You're trying to say I should have put a lock on my mailbox to stop you from just "accidentally walking by and making copies of all my letters."
I guess you didn't click through and look at the website? See, like so many other articles reposted around, this one is misleading. The site is to demo new technologies that are supported by Safari. The page is to demo Safari. Kind of misses the point to use another browser, doesn't it?