Cool. But that doesn't mean that 90 of the people that downloaded are playing it. How many of them tried it, didn't like it, and deleted it? ... First off, piracy isn't news.
Second off, this isn't even news, it's fucking speculation. Shit, it's worse then that, the companies is using piracy to promote their game. They are trying to lay a guilt trip on people to buy their game. ... They just lost any future sales from me for this marketing stunt.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. I'd been given it to play by someone else, I liked it, and I BOUGHT World of Goo for the Wii. I like both so much, I BOUGHT it again with the Humble Bundle and installed it to three different computers.
Are they counting usage on multiple machines as one purchase, and multiple pirated copies? It's allowed in the licencing, so they better not be. I'm willing to bet they are, and this explains the 90% rate.
You're right, they're trying to lay a guilt trip on those who haven't paid, but their stats are less accurate than the RIAA's.
I really liked the games, but I'm really sad to say I won't be buying from them again if this is how they want to play.
Actually in UK law the digital economy act practically requires by law that isp's are to monitor their users and notify certain bodies of any possible illegal activity.
"we are concerned that obligations imposed by the Act may not be compatible with important European rules that are designed to ensure that national laws protect users’ privacy, restrict the role of ISPs in policing the internet and maintain a single market." - TalkTalk Blog
Also, maybe I'm being dumb, but can someone explain to me how knowing the number of people visiting a website is going to help identify malware?
As far as I am aware, no other mobile manufacturer have put terms in that "Your location data will be stored and sold".
Neither does Apple.
From Apple's Terms; "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. "
Oh yeah, of course they'll give it to their 'partners' for 'free'. That's so much 'better'.
Their "partners" being Skyhook and Google. All that is detailed in the letter, what data is transmitted and why. Didn't you repeatedly claim you read it? Oh, right, you also repeatedly proved you at least didn't understand what your average 8 year old would.
Right - and that will never change in the future? and Apple will never use that data anywhere or for anything else, other than matching GPS against AGPS?
If that's the case, why all the legal banter? They don't need to store the information anonymously, only that location W is near transmitters X,Y&Z.
Given that you've given permission for Apple to use this data, isn't it likely they're going to use it for whatever they can?
Being as the legalese isn't so clear-cut as to explain it's only used for tracking, how can you be so positive it's not going to be used for anything else.
I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. If the possibility is there for them to profit from the data, I don't doubt that they'd do it!
Law can be complicated and it's important you read every word carefully, to ensure there isn't the possibility of misuse. That isn't clear here. Did you know that most things are both more complicated and less complex than you think?
Oh great. That really puts my mind at ease! </sarcasm>
So you admit Google is way worse than Apple - there is some hope for you. It should relieve you that they don't send data to either of those partners from devices with iPhone OS 3.2 or higher.
Have you ever heard of sarcasm before - or are you American?
Um, no. That's again, your interpretation. Let me put this in terms you might understand.
Google storing location info is a concern
Apple hiding privacy risk in Terms is very bad practice
Google + Apple using this data together - a bigger worry.
Doesn't relieve me at all that the two aren't working together. I don't own an iPhone or a Googlebox. It does worry me that the allowance of Apple to have this legal construct could ensure that other companies try to push the use of this information further. It's called a slippery slope.
A slippery slope is when a company does something that's possible dodgy, and then other companies start copying them. Because the first company wasn't stopped, it's harder to stop the further extensions.
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at...which these changes cannot be reversed"
(I'll let you figure out who said that, it's quite interesting, I expect you can find a search engine on your tracking box)
People are acting like this is the first "massively long" EULA. Guess what? THEY'RE ALL MASSIVELY LONG! But, it really IS your responsibility to READ them.
Yes, but hiding something like location tracking sharing information in a document like that; rather than having it as a setting is unfair.
It's the same as if Microsoft added a clause in to say you had to wash their car weekly. Oh? You didn't read it? Tough.
Your mention of Android again is a little silly, because Android does make this clearer than Apple. No, I'm not happy with it - but it's a simple one on-screen question. Are you saying that being asked that single question is the same as having it hidden in terms and conditions?
Before you say it - how often does GPS search for a cellular network? On a schedule? Or just when it losing signal... as in when you move location?
So, you are SPECULATING on a FALLBACK mechanism being used for nefarious purposes?
Since when is looking for a better signal a fallback mechanism?!
You do realize, don't you, that there is already a protocol for "tower-handoffs" that works MUCH better than using GPS
So why are Apple using it? Seems like if its worse then the only reason is the added benefit of location information.
Isn't it getting a bit hot under that tinfoil hat? (Or maybe that's just the mind-control waves being beamed into your head by the Gummint)...
Hang on; they're legally entitled to have your location data, but they're not doing it? Despite you agreeing to it? Where did you get this information?
Can't even remember what you claimed they do, ehh?
I was implying that they are legally entitled to have your location information. You have given them your location information, and agreed to them having it.
How come you're so sure that they're not doing anything with it?
Its very dishonest to hide such a sensitive thing and only admit it after being "caught".
I think if google would have done that it would be news everywhere. and it should for apple too, but I am not really seeing this news being broadcasted that way all over the internet. I hope I'm wrong, such a thing should not go unnoticed.
Thanks, I agree. If it was Google, I'd be surprised not to see it on the news. Apple seem to have hidden it behind the iPhone 4 aerial problems - maybe that was a horrible intention? Or am I being incredibly cynical!?
I was just referring to the fact that I usually have no worries about that information about me being shared - trying to do that behind my back however, just makes me lose confidence in that company.
I'd be worried about it. Not because how it is now, but because of where it could go in the future. Apple brought in the first main locked-down App Store. Now Microsoft is copying it in Windows 8. How long before you can only install approved apps? This is a horrible slippery slope, and mostly Apple is to blame!
Especially if they are claiming that third party ad services like admob will be banned just because they do broadcast sensitive information like location and OS version and the like! ( that was steve's excuse for banning them right after announcing iAds:P )
Are you serious!? Wow. That's some incredible hypocrisy. I'm glad that people are slowly beginning to see that Apple (and all companies) shouldn't be trusted. Most people I know with iPhones aren't bothered - but weren't aware of it either. That really concerns me.
My point about the Government is that we wouldn't give them unlimited access to our location; how come we're fine giving it to Apple?
I'd really like to see a major news channel picking up on this, making people aware to be able to make up their own minds. It's not the privacy risk, nor the future of it, but that most people STILL aren't even aware of it.
tower and hotspot triangulation is WAY too "coarse"
That really depends how many hotspots there are around you. Willing to gamble with your privacy? I'm not. That's your choice - so long as you're aware of the facts, and didn't have to read a massively long agreement before being aware of it.
Turning off access to "Location Services" denies OS-LEVEL ACCESS TO THE API.
Actually, that's impossible. Straight from the PDF file:
"Apple collects anonymous Wi-Fi Access Point, Cell Tower, and GPS information from devices that have location services turned on, have explicitly authorized apps to use their location, and are actively running one of the apps. Anonymized Wi-Fi Access Point information and GPS coordinates may also be recorded when an iPhone is using GPS to search for a cellular network."
Before you say it - how often does GPS search for a cellular network? On a schedule? Or just when it losing signal... as in when you move location?
And assuming they have my localization for a really good excuse (like google latitude does, for example), I don't think I would care much about it. Especially if I can just turn it off.
Well, like I've said, you've explicitly agreed to let Google have this information. You know they're going to store it. Apple have hidden it in the terms, to me; that is simply sneaky!
I bet most governments are already able to track you down when you are using your cell phone - in some countries it might be legal, in others not.
Sure, but there's usually at least some legal safeguards in place, in the very least, logging of who's searched for whom. If you're in a country that isn't keeping this data safe, you've probably got bigger things to worry about than Apple.
It just, I don't think the government would gain much for knowing where I am, unless I am a threat to others (as, say, a terrorist, not as in a pirate). And the same probably goes for apple.
Ah, but what if it gets into the wrong hands? What if your ex, or your employer finds out something private about you that you don't want them to know?
Maybe I'm stupid, but I tend to trust the Government a bit more than Apple; who have said they will share it with their partners, rather than the UK Government who'll just leave it on a train.
Apple doesnt ask me to carry that around. I choose to.
Ah, but did you KNOW that Apple were storing this information before you bought it? Had you read the Terms? If so, then fine! No problems! That's completely your decision.
Presumably you know that Google Latitude is also going to store your data - you've explicitly agreed to it. That's your decision too!
Not knowing that Apple are actually doing tracking on you, or keeping it hidden in the Terms is very dishonest. Most people I've spoken to have had no idea they're doing it.
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Note that the "Location Services" config pane also shows exactly WHICH apps have requested your location within the past 24 hours. No pawing through log files. There it is, for any user that CARES.
That's only for apps. We're discussing what Apple do with this data, which is allowed in their terms.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere, location data is still gathered in some circumstances even when "Location Services" is disabled.
Read this discussion a bit more, or the top of page 12. It's all over the place! Its your choice if you feel this is a privacy violation or not, but don't ignore the facts.
With one exception, Apple automatically collects this information only (1) if the device's location-based service capabilities are toggled to "On" and (2) the customer uses an application requiring location-based information. If both conditions are met, the device intermittently and anonymously collects Cell Tower and Wi-Fi Access Point Information from the cell towers and Wi-Fi access points it can "see", along with the GPS coordinates, if available. This information is batched and then encrypted and transmitted to Apple over a Wi-Fi internet connection every twelve hours...
The one exception is when a device has location services turned on and is searching for a cellular network.
So Apple store your location ONLY when you disconnect from Wi-Fi or a cell tower, or when it's trying to find a better signal?
How often is that? Especially given the disconnection problems. Generally the reason I end up disconnecting or connecting to a new tower or Wi-Fi Access Point, it's because I've moved elsewhere... i.e. changed my location.
So Apple are collection location information only when... I've changed location?
You're missing the point - unless the contract you signed explicitly states that they _won't_ collect location data, you can assume that they do. They're not limited to doing only things mentioned in the contract. They can do anything that Apple said they'd do, and more with your data.
That depends on which country your in. In the UK, at least, there exists the Data Protection Act, which means we can find out who has what data, and get a copy of it. I'm sure there's a few other privacy safeguards, but I am not a lawyer.d I would imagine that most companies would be sensible enough to put this in their terms, rather than hope no-one notices and risk litigation later.
Android have at least made it fairly clear; there's a popup that says that location data will be collected even when no app is using it; if location services are turned on. My concern obviously is that Apple haven't made it clear this can be disabled, nor made it clear to customers that they do this. I'm not saying that Google are doing this perfectly, but at least not hiding it is better. I'm not happy with Google or Apple for various reasons btw, I'm no fanboi!
If other companies are doing it without putting it in there terms, I suspect they'll be an outcry then too.
You do realize that the terms protect you as much as the Company? If it's not in the terms at all, that means they have no restrictions at all against selling your location data.
That depends on which country your in. In the UK, at least, there exists the Data Protection Act, which means we can find out who has what data, and get a copy of it. I'm sure there's a few other privacy safeguards, but I am not a lawyer.d I would imagine that most companies would be sensible enough to put this in their terms, rather than hope no-one notices and risk litigation later.
Android have at least made it fairly clear; there's a popup that says that location data will be collected even when no app is using it; if location services are turned on. My concern obviously is that Apple haven't made it clear this can be disabled, nor made it clear to customers that they do this. I'm not saying that Google are doing this perfectly, but at least not hiding it is better. I'm not happy with Google or Apple for various reasons btw, I'm no fanboi!
If other companies are doing it without putting it in there terms, I suspect they'll be an outcry then too.
So, you're REALLY going to argue that that data is ANYWHERE NEAR accurate enough to PINPOINT where you are?!?
You're simply looking for something to "hate" on, aren't you?
It's down to around 5 meters when I'm in town. It's called triangulation. Accuracy varies on the number of Wi-Fi points, cell towers and whether GPS is enabled.
It's simple mathematics really, if there's only one point of reference, only approximate distance can be calculated on signal strength. With two points, it can be reduced to two approximate locations. As more points of reference are added, accuracy increases. Unless you know what points of reference are being used, then your accuracy of location is a gamble. Depends if you're happy to take that risk.
I've no reason to hate, I only wish to educate. Its your choice if you're happy with Apple having this information, but I'd hate myself if I didn't at least try to ensure you knew all the possibilities.
I'm no lawyer, but there's so many holes in this document and their terms; even I can see them. Yes, it's probably very unlikely, but the fact is that of those that have agreed to it, most people almost certainly haven't even read it. There's no reason for them to have it; so why let it happen?
Slashdot Mirror
Cell phone have a pretty good reason to make at least a half assed attempt to keep phones from being rooted.
I'm just a fan, but the Nokia N900 is easily rooted. Just open up the terminal and type in "root".
Opening a fly on your own pants requires some fairly different movements than opening someone else's.
If you knew that though, you wouldn't be posting on /. ;)
Speak for yourself
*unzips*
Enough with the Rubik's cube junk, someone please tell us how to unhook a bra with *1* move.
Same method as with a Rubik's Cube; Stanley blade, and a careful knife technique.
Or, y'know, just pull them off and stick them on the other side.
Cool. But that doesn't mean that 90 of the people that downloaded are playing it. How many of them tried it, didn't like it, and deleted it?
...
First off, piracy isn't news. Second off, this isn't even news, it's fucking speculation. Shit, it's worse then that, the companies is using piracy to promote their game. They are trying to lay a guilt trip on people to buy their game.
...
They just lost any future sales from me for this marketing stunt.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. I'd been given it to play by someone else, I liked it, and I BOUGHT World of Goo for the Wii. I like both so much, I BOUGHT it again with the Humble Bundle and installed it to three different computers.
Are they counting usage on multiple machines as one purchase, and multiple pirated copies? It's allowed in the licencing, so they better not be. I'm willing to bet they are, and this explains the 90% rate.
You're right, they're trying to lay a guilt trip on those who haven't paid, but their stats are less accurate than the RIAA's.
I really liked the games, but I'm really sad to say I won't be buying from them again if this is how they want to play.
Actually in UK law the digital economy act practically requires by law that isp's are to monitor their users and notify certain bodies of any possible illegal activity.
As you've said, it's ironic for a company that have said this:
Also, maybe I'm being dumb, but can someone explain to me how knowing the number of people visiting a website is going to help identify malware?
Don't put roulette in the name if it has rules.
Seriously? I've got some people to inform then...
BRB - Gone to Las Vegas...
Idiot.
"But she said she was 18" isn't a valid defense.
Unintentional violation of the law is still violation.
You want Chatroulette users to ask to see a Passport or Drivers Licence first?
I can see massive privacy violations and identity theft with that...
I prefer PHP:
<?$a="Around the world, ";$b="$a$a<br>";echo str_repeat("<p>$b$b$b$b$a</p>",18);?>
Lars:
understand what your average 8 year old would
Lars
rape a child tomorrow, so we should kill you now to save the child
Very worrying.
Maybe there is some sense in tracking your location.
You being stupid is endless amounts of fun.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
No, that's not sarcasm. That's irony.
As far as I am aware, no other mobile manufacturer have put terms in that "Your location data will be stored and sold".
Neither does Apple.
From Apple's Terms; "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. " Oh yeah, of course they'll give it to their 'partners' for 'free'. That's so much 'better'.
Their "partners" being Skyhook and Google. All that is detailed in the letter, what data is transmitted and why. Didn't you repeatedly claim you read it? Oh, right, you also repeatedly proved you at least didn't understand what your average 8 year old would.
Right - and that will never change in the future? and Apple will never use that data anywhere or for anything else, other than matching GPS against AGPS?
If that's the case, why all the legal banter? They don't need to store the information anonymously, only that location W is near transmitters X,Y&Z.
Given that you've given permission for Apple to use this data, isn't it likely they're going to use it for whatever they can?
Being as the legalese isn't so clear-cut as to explain it's only used for tracking, how can you be so positive it's not going to be used for anything else.
I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. If the possibility is there for them to profit from the data, I don't doubt that they'd do it!
Law can be complicated and it's important you read every word carefully, to ensure there isn't the possibility of misuse. That isn't clear here. Did you know that most things are both more complicated and less complex than you think?
The partners are Google and Skyhook.
Oh great. That really puts my mind at ease! </sarcasm>
So you admit Google is way worse than Apple - there is some hope for you. It should relieve you that they don't send data to either of those partners from devices with iPhone OS 3.2 or higher.
Have you ever heard of sarcasm before - or are you American?
...which these changes cannot be reversed"
Um, no. That's again, your interpretation. Let me put this in terms you might understand.
Google storing location info is a concern
Apple hiding privacy risk in Terms is very bad practice
Google + Apple using this data together - a bigger worry.
Doesn't relieve me at all that the two aren't working together. I don't own an iPhone or a Googlebox. It does worry me that the allowance of Apple to have this legal construct could ensure that other companies try to push the use of this information further. It's called a slippery slope.
A slippery slope is when a company does something that's possible dodgy, and then other companies start copying them. Because the first company wasn't stopped, it's harder to stop the further extensions.
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at
(I'll let you figure out who said that, it's quite interesting, I expect you can find a search engine on your tracking box)
People are acting like this is the first "massively long" EULA. Guess what? THEY'RE ALL MASSIVELY LONG! But, it really IS your responsibility to READ them.
Yes, but hiding something like location tracking sharing information in a document like that; rather than having it as a setting is unfair.
It's the same as if Microsoft added a clause in to say you had to wash their car weekly. Oh? You didn't read it? Tough.
Your mention of Android again is a little silly, because Android does make this clearer than Apple. No, I'm not happy with it - but it's a simple one on-screen question. Are you saying that being asked that single question is the same as having it hidden in terms and conditions?
Before you say it - how often does GPS search for a cellular network? On a schedule? Or just when it losing signal... as in when you move location?
So, you are SPECULATING on a FALLBACK mechanism being used for nefarious purposes?
Since when is looking for a better signal a fallback mechanism?!
You do realize, don't you, that there is already a protocol for "tower-handoffs" that works MUCH better than using GPS
So why are Apple using it? Seems like if its worse then the only reason is the added benefit of location information.
Isn't it getting a bit hot under that tinfoil hat? (Or maybe that's just the mind-control waves being beamed into your head by the Gummint)...
Nope. No tin foil hat. No iPhone.
Hang on; they're legally entitled to have your location data, but they're not doing it? Despite you agreeing to it? Where did you get this information?
Can't even remember what you claimed they do, ehh?
I was implying that they are legally entitled to have your location information. You have given them your location information, and agreed to them having it.
How come you're so sure that they're not doing anything with it?
yes, I totally agree with that.
Its very dishonest to hide such a sensitive thing and only admit it after being "caught".
I think if google would have done that it would be news everywhere. and it should for apple too, but I am not really seeing this news being broadcasted that way all over the internet. I hope I'm wrong, such a thing should not go unnoticed.
Thanks, I agree. If it was Google, I'd be surprised not to see it on the news. Apple seem to have hidden it behind the iPhone 4 aerial problems - maybe that was a horrible intention? Or am I being incredibly cynical!?
I was just referring to the fact that I usually have no worries about that information about me being shared - trying to do that behind my back however, just makes me lose confidence in that company.
I'd be worried about it. Not because how it is now, but because of where it could go in the future. Apple brought in the first main locked-down App Store. Now Microsoft is copying it in Windows 8. How long before you can only install approved apps? This is a horrible slippery slope, and mostly Apple is to blame!
Especially if they are claiming that third party ad services like admob will be banned just because they do broadcast sensitive information like location and OS version and the like! ( that was steve's excuse for banning them right after announcing iAds :P )
Are you serious!? Wow. That's some incredible hypocrisy. I'm glad that people are slowly beginning to see that Apple (and all companies) shouldn't be trusted. Most people I know with iPhones aren't bothered - but weren't aware of it either. That really concerns me.
My point about the Government is that we wouldn't give them unlimited access to our location; how come we're fine giving it to Apple?
I'd really like to see a major news channel picking up on this, making people aware to be able to make up their own minds. It's not the privacy risk, nor the future of it, but that most people STILL aren't even aware of it.
tower and hotspot triangulation is WAY too "coarse"
That really depends how many hotspots there are around you. Willing to gamble with your privacy? I'm not. That's your choice - so long as you're aware of the facts, and didn't have to read a massively long agreement before being aware of it.
Turning off access to "Location Services" denies OS-LEVEL ACCESS TO THE API.
Actually, that's impossible. Straight from the PDF file:
"Apple collects anonymous Wi-Fi Access Point, Cell Tower, and GPS information from devices that have location services turned on, have explicitly authorized apps to use their location, and are actively running one of the apps. Anonymized Wi-Fi Access Point information and GPS coordinates may also be recorded when an iPhone is using GPS to search for a cellular network."
Before you say it - how often does GPS search for a cellular network? On a schedule? Or just when it losing signal... as in when you move location?
The partners are Google and Skyhook.
Oh great. That really puts my mind at ease! </sarcasm>
And assuming they have my localization for a really good excuse (like google latitude does, for example), I don't think I would care much about it. Especially if I can just turn it off.
Well, like I've said, you've explicitly agreed to let Google have this information. You know they're going to store it. Apple have hidden it in the terms, to me; that is simply sneaky!
I bet most governments are already able to track you down when you are using your cell phone - in some countries it might be legal, in others not.
Sure, but there's usually at least some legal safeguards in place, in the very least, logging of who's searched for whom. If you're in a country that isn't keeping this data safe, you've probably got bigger things to worry about than Apple.
It just, I don't think the government would gain much for knowing where I am, unless I am a threat to others (as, say, a terrorist, not as in a pirate). And the same probably goes for apple.
Ah, but what if it gets into the wrong hands? What if your ex, or your employer finds out something private about you that you don't want them to know?
Maybe I'm stupid, but I tend to trust the Government a bit more than Apple; who have said they will share it with their partners, rather than the UK Government who'll just leave it on a train.
Apple doesnt ask me to carry that around. I choose to.
Ah, but did you KNOW that Apple were storing this information before you bought it? Had you read the Terms? If so, then fine! No problems! That's completely your decision.
Presumably you know that Google Latitude is also going to store your data - you've explicitly agreed to it. That's your decision too!
Not knowing that Apple are actually doing tracking on you, or keeping it hidden in the Terms is very dishonest. Most people I've spoken to have had no idea they're doing it.
"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
Note that the "Location Services" config pane also shows exactly WHICH apps have requested your location within the past 24 hours. No pawing through log files. There it is, for any user that CARES.
That's only for apps. We're discussing what Apple do with this data, which is allowed in their terms.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere, location data is still gathered in some circumstances even when "Location Services" is disabled.
Read this discussion a bit more, or the top of page 12. It's all over the place! Its your choice if you feel this is a privacy violation or not, but don't ignore the facts.
With one exception, Apple automatically collects this information only (1) if the device's location-based service capabilities are toggled to "On" and (2) the customer uses an application requiring location-based information. If both conditions are met, the device intermittently and anonymously collects Cell Tower and Wi-Fi Access Point Information from the cell towers and Wi-Fi access points it can "see", along with the GPS coordinates, if available. This information is batched and then encrypted and transmitted to Apple over a Wi-Fi internet connection every twelve hours...
The one exception is when a device has location services turned on and is searching for a cellular network.
So Apple store your location ONLY when you disconnect from Wi-Fi or a cell tower, or when it's trying to find a better signal?
How often is that? Especially given the disconnection problems. Generally the reason I end up disconnecting or connecting to a new tower or Wi-Fi Access Point, it's because I've moved elsewhere... i.e. changed my location.
So Apple are collection location information only when... I've changed location?
The one exception is when a device has location services turned on and is searching for a cellular network.
If it is collecting location data every time there's a dropped connection, this could be constantly on the iPhone 4!
You're missing the point - unless the contract you signed explicitly states that they _won't_ collect location data, you can assume that they do. They're not limited to doing only things mentioned in the contract. They can do anything that Apple said they'd do, and more with your data.
That depends on which country your in. In the UK, at least, there exists the Data Protection Act, which means we can find out who has what data, and get a copy of it. I'm sure there's a few other privacy safeguards, but I am not a lawyer.d I would imagine that most companies would be sensible enough to put this in their terms, rather than hope no-one notices and risk litigation later.
Android have at least made it fairly clear; there's a popup that says that location data will be collected even when no app is using it; if location services are turned on. My concern obviously is that Apple haven't made it clear this can be disabled, nor made it clear to customers that they do this. I'm not saying that Google are doing this perfectly, but at least not hiding it is better. I'm not happy with Google or Apple for various reasons btw, I'm no fanboi!
If other companies are doing it without putting it in there terms, I suspect they'll be an outcry then too.
You do realize that the terms protect you as much as the Company? If it's not in the terms at all, that means they have no restrictions at all against selling your location data.
That depends on which country your in. In the UK, at least, there exists the Data Protection Act, which means we can find out who has what data, and get a copy of it. I'm sure there's a few other privacy safeguards, but I am not a lawyer.d I would imagine that most companies would be sensible enough to put this in their terms, rather than hope no-one notices and risk litigation later.
Android have at least made it fairly clear; there's a popup that says that location data will be collected even when no app is using it; if location services are turned on. My concern obviously is that Apple haven't made it clear this can be disabled, nor made it clear to customers that they do this. I'm not saying that Google are doing this perfectly, but at least not hiding it is better. I'm not happy with Google or Apple for various reasons btw, I'm no fanboi!
If other companies are doing it without putting it in there terms, I suspect they'll be an outcry then too.
So, you're REALLY going to argue that that data is ANYWHERE NEAR accurate enough to PINPOINT where you are?!? You're simply looking for something to "hate" on, aren't you?
It's down to around 5 meters when I'm in town. It's called triangulation. Accuracy varies on the number of Wi-Fi points, cell towers and whether GPS is enabled.
It's simple mathematics really, if there's only one point of reference, only approximate distance can be calculated on signal strength. With two points, it can be reduced to two approximate locations. As more points of reference are added, accuracy increases. Unless you know what points of reference are being used, then your accuracy of location is a gamble. Depends if you're happy to take that risk.
I've no reason to hate, I only wish to educate. Its your choice if you're happy with Apple having this information, but I'd hate myself if I didn't at least try to ensure you knew all the possibilities.
I'm no lawyer, but there's so many holes in this document and their terms; even I can see them. Yes, it's probably very unlikely, but the fact is that of those that have agreed to it, most people almost certainly haven't even read it. There's no reason for them to have it; so why let it happen?