First you have to know about it. Most people they are collecting data on don't know. Then you have ot find out how to turn it off.
If a series of checkboxes is too complex for you, perhaps Google is a bit beyond your comprehension. It's probably for the best that you stopped using their services.
Even before checkboxes you have to find the fucking page, moron.
Funny, they do and I'm not.
They don't and you just DID attack them by lying. Apple is the most protective company of user's rights to their own data. Obviously you'll post to an edge case of some user centric feature, and call that spying. But it's not. Spying on users is Google's business model, not Apple's. Apple's customers are users, Google's are advertisers.
I used to use a Garmin. But their capabilities have long since been outdone by phones. A phone will have compass and accelerometer. Between that and the knowledge you are very likely to be on a road, it should be able to give a pretty good estimate of your position through dead reckoning.
In fact the phone probably has better access to travel information too, and so will be better able to give you an ETA for your whole journey.
Uhh...what iOS permissions model? If you install an app on iOS, you give it access to everything, including the kitchen sink. Apple mandates that the app ask for certain things, like location, but the app doesn't actually have to comply with what you ask.
Lying does nothing to further your point of view. The OS asks for the permissions, such as location. If the user denies it, the app gets no data back from the API. The app can't do anything with data it doesn't have.
best is to allow all privs and feed the apps JUNK FAKE DATA
You're out of date. That was the Android Fanboy's talking point back in the day when Android didn't have the ability to deny individual permissions.
The reason that it's not a good idea is pretty obvious. Why would I want an app presenting FALSE data, or functioning according to FALSE data. For example I don't want a map to be presented centred on Easter Island, because that's the particular lie the FAKE DATA engine came up with. I want the app to know that it doesn't have my current location, so it can do something more appropriate.
Your Google fanboyism has blinded you to reality. I stopped using any Google services the day I found that they'd kept a log of every single search I'd done for at least 2 years without ever asking me.
Whether or not they have complex UIs for turning off some features after the fact, if you ever find out about it, does not excuse their ever increasing forcible collection of your data. They are a despicable company.
If you can't work out that the functionality has been trimmed and a message says "Not whilst car is in motion" means pull over first, you deserve to die.
Sure I know that. I thought it was a review unit. Turns out it was a developer unit. One that was sold for $1 with an NDA. The fact that the developer account that it was bought with was banned when they broke the NDA is neither a surprise nor a problem.
And if you look at the terms from the Apple fanboi Daring Fireball blog, it says you can't "resell" it. So even though it only cost me a dollar plus tax, I still interpreted that as a purchase.
You took the fact that you're not allowed to resell it as proof that you owned it? Most people would come to the opposite conclusion.
are admirers of the illustrious Woz from days of yore
Well when ESR develops his own hardware, you'll have complete freedom to do whatever you like with it. He won't though, because he, is one of the Free Software flock that rely on the cathedrals (such as Apple) to produce hardware.
It's not conjecture, Jackass. RTFA. iFixit admitted it:
"The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they didnâ(TM)t intend for us to take it apart. But weâ(TM)re a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNAâ"and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway."
Nothing stops you from opening a uint you purchased.
This unit wasn't purchased, it was a review unit that Apple lent to them. Meaning they dismantled someone else's physical object. And that's never OK without permission.
No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.
If iFixit waited till they could buy their own in store, then tore that down, then there wouldn't be a problem.
iOS has had multipath-TCP since iOS7. WiFi assist is new in iOS9. So no, that is not the explanation.
Netflix is a red-herring. WiFi assist is not an enabler for NetFlix, and it doesn't require a developer to do anything. (Otherwise there would be an API, and there isn't.)
And still you're guessing. This isn't a specific streaming technology, it works for every kind of data.
It is shame that Apple doesn't document its stuff any better and keeps everything secret.
There's no need to document, when neither the app developer nor the web service provider needs to do anything. It works transparently. The only documentation it needs is what it allows the user to do, and how to turn it on and off.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt. The point is that Apple wouldn't do it because of the conflicts.
And you can delete that log easily.
First you have to know about it. Most people they are collecting data on don't know. Then you have ot find out how to turn it off.
If a series of checkboxes is too complex for you, perhaps Google is a bit beyond your comprehension. It's probably for the best that you stopped using their services.
Even before checkboxes you have to find the fucking page, moron.
Funny, they do and I'm not.
They don't and you just DID attack them by lying. Apple is the most protective company of user's rights to their own data. Obviously you'll post to an edge case of some user centric feature, and call that spying. But it's not. Spying on users is Google's business model, not Apple's. Apple's customers are users, Google's are advertisers.
I used to use a Garmin. But their capabilities have long since been outdone by phones. A phone will have compass and accelerometer. Between that and the knowledge you are very likely to be on a road, it should be able to give a pretty good estimate of your position through dead reckoning.
In fact the phone probably has better access to travel information too, and so will be better able to give you an ETA for your whole journey.
It'd be conflicts of interest all the way.
Apple serves the consumer, and puts restrictions on advertisers.
Google serves the advertisers, and farms user information to do so.
If you can afford to run a Porsche, you can afford a real iPhone. There won't be many Porsche drivers with Android phones.
Uhh...what iOS permissions model? If you install an app on iOS, you give it access to everything, including the kitchen sink. Apple mandates that the app ask for certain things, like location, but the app doesn't actually have to comply with what you ask.
Lying does nothing to further your point of view. The OS asks for the permissions, such as location. If the user denies it, the app gets no data back from the API. The app can't do anything with data it doesn't have.
best is to allow all privs and feed the apps JUNK FAKE DATA
You're out of date. That was the Android Fanboy's talking point back in the day when Android didn't have the ability to deny individual permissions.
The reason that it's not a good idea is pretty obvious. Why would I want an app presenting FALSE data, or functioning according to FALSE data. For example I don't want a map to be presented centred on Easter Island, because that's the particular lie the FAKE DATA engine came up with. I want the app to know that it doesn't have my current location, so it can do something more appropriate.
Even after VW's shame, I still have less trust for Google. That's not to say I trust VW. Just that Google is so untrustworthy.
Your Google fanboyism has blinded you to reality. I stopped using any Google services the day I found that they'd kept a log of every single search I'd done for at least 2 years without ever asking me.
Whether or not they have complex UIs for turning off some features after the fact, if you ever find out about it, does not excuse their ever increasing forcible collection of your data. They are a despicable company.
If Apple was doing this you'd be attacking them.
What a lot of self entitled pricks with first world problems there are on Slashdot.
If you can't work out that the functionality has been trimmed and a message says "Not whilst car is in motion" means pull over first, you deserve to die.
The sentence wouldn't be formed that way.
Sure I know that. I thought it was a review unit. Turns out it was a developer unit. One that was sold for $1 with an NDA. The fact that the developer account that it was bought with was banned when they broke the NDA is neither a surprise nor a problem.
Remove it before setting off? Where's the fun in that? Much more fun to clear the snow with the application of Newton's first law of motion.
http://laughingsquid.com/wp-co...
I have a friend with a "developer unit" of Google Glass, and it's his. He owns it.
You mean the one he paid around $1700 for? No kidding he owns it.
And if you look at the terms from the Apple fanboi Daring Fireball blog, it says you can't "resell" it. So even though it only cost me a dollar plus tax, I still interpreted that as a purchase.
You took the fact that you're not allowed to resell it as proof that you owned it? Most people would come to the opposite conclusion.
are admirers of the illustrious Woz from days of yore
Yawn.
Well when ESR develops his own hardware, you'll have complete freedom to do whatever you like with it. He won't though, because he, is one of the Free Software flock that rely on the cathedrals (such as Apple) to produce hardware.
It's not conjecture, Jackass. RTFA. iFixit admitted it:
"The developer unit we disassembled was sent to us by Apple. Evidently, they didnâ(TM)t intend for us to take it apart. But weâ(TM)re a teardown and repair company; teardowns are in our DNAâ"and nothing makes us happier than figuring out what makes these gadgets tick. We weighed the risks, blithely tossed those risks over our shoulder, and tore down the Apple TV anyway."
Nothing stops you from opening a uint you purchased.
This unit wasn't purchased, it was a review unit that Apple lent to them. Meaning they dismantled someone else's physical object. And that's never OK without permission.
No, Apple LENT them one. Review units are not gifts.
No it isn't. Apple LENT them a unit, and they tore it down. If I lend you a lawnmower, and with out my permission (unauthorised) you pull it apart, then I'm going to punish you too.
If iFixit waited till they could buy their own in store, then tore that down, then there wouldn't be a problem.
iOS has had multipath-TCP since iOS7. WiFi assist is new in iOS9. So no, that is not the explanation.
Netflix is a red-herring. WiFi assist is not an enabler for NetFlix, and it doesn't require a developer to do anything. (Otherwise there would be an API, and there isn't.)
Wrong. It's got nothing to do with fucking Netflix. I don't even use Netflix. This works transparently with anything packet based.
And still you're guessing. This isn't a specific streaming technology, it works for every kind of data.
It is shame that Apple doesn't document its stuff any better and keeps everything secret.
There's no need to document, when neither the app developer nor the web service provider needs to do anything. It works transparently. The only documentation it needs is what it allows the user to do, and how to turn it on and off.