Congress Weighs in on iOS Apps Collecting Address Book and Other Personal Data

[Michaelgtrusa]

Really? What about Google and the Government themselves?

[dethmaShine]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

If an app uploads my complete address book to their servers, which is absolutely no ****ing business of theirs, then Apple should refund the money to all purchasers, remove the app permanently, and ban the developer. There is just no excuse in the world for that.

No. Sandboxing isn't about asking permission, it is about being able to do something or not. An app can request the ability to access your address book or not. If it requests it, it can. If it doesn't, it can't. They idea is that when deciding to accept the app or not, Apple will check whether the app has requested the ability, and if the app has any good reason to do so.

Another thing is that Apple can eventually provide sandboxed code to do things. For example, some code that lets the user choose a name from the address book and send an email to that person. That code would live in its little sandbox with access to address book and email. However, the rest of the application wouldn't be able to access the address book. So a game could allow you to send a picture to a friend that way, without itself being able to read your address book.

I so wish that happens to Path and all the other apps on the app store.

[f00f]

Originally Posted by Michaelgtrusa

Really? What about Google and the Government themselves?

Two fine examples for Apple to, you know, not emulate.

[samcraig]

I posted about this on the 9th

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1321588

[John.B]

Google has a complete record of people's emails, voicemails, websurfing habits (remember, with the new "privacy policy" they are indexing your entire web existence if you use their 8.8.8.8 DNS), Google+ friends and interactions, the list is almost endless.

The iOS address book security needs to be address, but it's definitely the low hanging fruit for a much larger privacy issue.

BTW, does anyone know what address book security comes stock in an Android phone?

[0dev]

So Android and WP7 phones are more secure then? Since they, you know, actually let you know when apps want access to your personal data? Interesting turn of events there. Been considering jumping ship to Android for quite some time anyway.

[danwayfilms]

This site really should be renamed "iOS - Rumors, News, Controversies, and Everything iPad - Forget everything else"

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by John.B

Google has a complete record of people's emails, voicemails, websurfing habits (remember, with the new "privacy policy" they are indexing your entire web existence if you use their 8.8.8.8 DNS), Google+ friends and interactions, the list is almost endless.

Slight difference I believe. If I'm using someone's services for my email and contact information - I can pretty much assume - since they are HOSTING that info - they have access to it.

However - this is completely differerent. A private device with personal data which is then being unknowingly uploaded to 3rd parties without consent.

If you don't see the difference, well....

[ChazUK]

Originally Posted by John.B

The iOS address book security needs to be address, but it's definitely the low hanging fruit for a much larger privacy issue.

BTW, does anyone know what address book security comes stock in an Android phone?

Every application you install on Android gives a full list of permissions before installing it (as does Windows Phone 7).



If you don't want to give a third party access to that info, you simply cancel the installation.

[0dev]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Slight difference I believe. If I'm using someone's services for my email and contact information - I can pretty much assume - since they are HOSTING that info - they have access to it.

However - this is completely differerent. A private device with personal data which is then being unknowingly uploaded to 3rd parties without consent.

If you don't see the difference, well....

Exactly. Google services have your data if you use them to manage that data by your own choice. They won't start downloading personal data from Android phones without telling users.

----------

Originally Posted by ChazUK

Every application you install on Android gives a full list of permissions before installing it (as does Windows Phone 7).



If you don't want to give a third party access to that info, you simply cancel the installation.

If you're on CM, you can also choose which permissions certain apps are allowed.

[iScott428]

Originally Posted by tigres

Because they have sent how many of these letters in the past 12 months? Why can't they concern themselves with true privacy issues like the FCRA and the credit agencies that sell our private information legally when someone pulls your credit. Ever wonder why you get calls from unknown's after you apply for financing? Google "Trigger Leads".... Why can't they focus on this REAL issue that has been around for 7 years now. This is a real privacy issue... selling your personal information legally @ pennies.

The company that F'd this up apologized, removed the data, and tried to make amends. I do not condone this as to be OK, but I am sick of all these media driven congressmen with a hard on lately when there are far worse privacy issues out there that need addressing.

Best post in the thread. Google is in bed with the Gov, and as well all know now the National mortgage system has absoluetly no flaws...

Path Apologized, corrected the mistake and updated the app. Couldn't imagine if this had happened in any other OS environment, how much worse the privacy loss would have been and at the same time how much less media/political official abuse it would have taken.

[nokuchikushi]

Yeah, because people really pay attention to the fine print.

Most every app is going to ask for some access to some kind of resource on your phone, so this "warning" route is ridiculously stupid. It may seem nice but the reality is it's next to useless. You'd never install anything.

The problem wasn't really that Path was accessing the address book data, is that is was uploading it to their servers and storing it there. That is the big issue and that's what all the hysterical whining is ignoring.

Your Windows app example doesn't address this. It just says the app wants to access something. Well, then, what's it going to do with it? It doesn't say. That's why it's useless. And that's why people will end up saying, "Okay." Just like they do for virus software.

Originally Posted by ChazUK

This whole fisaco is why I like to see a list of permissions before installing an app, ala WP7/Android.
Flashlight app wants full internet access, location and contacts? No install for you!

Example:
Image

[ChazUK]

Originally Posted by 0dev

If you're on CM, you can also choose which permissions certain apps are allowed.

I must admit, I've taken advantage of that feature on a few apps myself. That is a great addition to CyanogenMod. Can't wait for CM9 to hit stable.

[0dev]

Originally Posted by nokuchikushi

Yeah, because people really pay attention to the fine print.

Most every app is going to ask for some access to some kind of resource on your phone, so this "warning" route is ridiculously stupid. It may seem nice but the reality is it's next to useless. You'd never install anything.

The problem wasn't really that Path was accessing the address book data, is that is was uploading it to their servers and storing it there. That is the big issue and that's what all the hysterical whining is ignoring.

Your Windows app example doesn't address this. It just says the app wants to access something. Well, then, what's it going to do with it? It doesn't say. That's why it's useless. And that's why people will end up saying, "Okay." Just like they do for virus software.

When I've owned Android phones in the past, I've always made sure not to install apps which ask for more permissions than they need to do their job properly. For example, I was about to install a music app until I saw it wanted access to my system settings, list of running applications, full internet access, phone identity, GPS location, and a load of other stuff, so I didn't install it. If an App Store app wanted all that, I would have no way to judge whether or not it was necessary.

And again, with CM you can control which permissions apps are allowed to have. Additionally, with DroidWall you can only allow whitelisted apps to access the internet.

Apple likes to keep their users in the dark to make everything look simple, which is fine up to a point, but in these cases it's best to give more information to those who want it.

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by nokuchikushi

Yeah, because people really pay attention to the fine print.

Most every app is going to ask for some access to some kind of resource on your phone, so this "warning" route is ridiculously stupid. It may seem nice but the reality is it's next to useless. You'd never install anything.

The problem wasn't really that Path was accessing the address book data, is that is was uploading it to their servers and storing it there. That is the big issue and that's what all the hysterical whining is ignoring.

Your Windows app example doesn't address this. It just says the app wants to access something. Well, then, what's it going to do with it? It doesn't say. That's why it's useless. And that's why people will end up saying, "Okay." Just like they do for virus software.

Android's way may not be ideal but it's probably the only possible one. Besides, your depiction of the situation is totally wrong. Most applications do not really need that many privileges (games etc.). And for those few that do need the privileges you have to do dew diligence ad make sure that you deal with a reputable vendor.

[calderone]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

If an app uploads my complete address book to their servers, which is absolutely no ****ing business of theirs, then Apple should refund the money to all purchasers, remove the app permanently, and ban the developer. There is just no excuse in the world for that.

There is nothing wrong with what they did. Their business is to run a social network. A part of which is to connect users.

Do yourself a favor and read this article: http://mattgemmell.com/2012/02/11/ha...n-social-apps/

Originally Posted by lilo777

Android's way may not be ideal but it's probably the only possible one. Besides, your depiction of the situation is totally wrong. Most applications do not really need that many privileges (games etc.). And for those few that do need the privileges you have to do dew diligence ad make sure that you deal with a reputable vendor.

If a game has a multiplayer aspect, connecting users with Address Book information is definitely an option.

The problem with the permission model is:

1. The messages themselves are not written to be easily digested
2. People have been conditioned to just click/tap "Ok" or "Install" or "Ok, just leave me alone."

Number two is mainly a result of number one. The result is the same in most cases whether you are asked for permission or not.

I think developers should be granted the entitlements, but still take the step of saying "Hey, can I do this?"

[the8thark]

Originally Posted by allpar

I think what Congress intends to do is make the "free market" fix its problems with the attention and threat of legislation.

Just leaving the "free market" to fix things was tried and is still tried. Certain things are not fixable by the free market. Adam Smith said as much in The Wealth of Nations. I realize it's politically incorrect to suggest laissez faire capitalism was not handed to us by God, but ... rivers aren't supposed to burn.

Agreed.

If you are multinational company and screw up billions of dollars, the government gives you a bailout to save the company. But if you are a small company hiring 1-50 people having a rough time you get no assistance and they let you go under.

There is a saying in Australia. The nation is built on the back of small business. Mind you here it's the same, they let small business rot. But at least here they acknowledge it.

And that's the injustice we all have to live with. I say let the free market sort it out. If the multinational companies falter and their board members embezzle money then let the company go under. It will serve them right to do the right thing. Cause at the moment the big companies are rewarded for screwing up. And it sickens me.

[samcraig]

I wonder how many people think this is no big deal because they genuinely think that (and would think that if it was google or microsoft). Or because it's Apple.

[ChazUK]

Originally Posted by nokuchikushi

Yeah, because people really pay attention to the fine print.

Most every app is going to ask for some access to some kind of resource on your phone, so this "warning" route is ridiculously stupid.

Read section 17.1 of the iOS guidelines:

Apps cannot transmit data about a user without obtaining the user’s prior permission and providing the user with access to information about how and where the data will be used.

"Warning" users is the current solution by obtaining permission before obtaining data to some extent. In Path's case, they were in breech of the guidelines by not doing it.

Had path added a popup with what they intended to do with your contacts with an accept/deny button, things would be fine.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by ChazUK

Every application you install on Android gives a full list of permissions before installing it (as does Windows Phone 7).

If you don't want to give a third party access to that info, you simply cancel the installation.

It's all or nothing, though, right?

[Shrink]

I bow to no man in my intense dislike and general distrust of, cynicism toward, and general revulsion felt for politicians.

However, in this situation, I don't see the harm in looking into the privacy issue. Granted, the majority of people here on MR are able to protect themselves. But there are a whole lot of folks out there who are not as knowledgeable, and some kind of warning, toggle, opt-out, etc. would help protect the less sophisticated.

I know it's a horrible bother to us know-it-alls, but any privacy protections that can be put in place are welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

[0dev]

Originally Posted by ChazUK

Read section 17.1 of the iOS guidelines:


"Warning" users is the current solution by obtaining permission before obtaining data to some extent. In Path's case, they were in breech of the guidelines by not doing it.

Had path added a popup with what they intended to do with your contacts with an accept/deny button, things would be fine.

I wonder why Apple allowed the app in the first place, seeing as they check the code for every single one? Looks like that approach doesn't do much for security after all, it just gives Apple an excuse to keep its users in the dark.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by ChazUK

Read section 17.1 of the iOS guidelines:


"Warning" users is the current solution by obtaining permission before obtaining data to some extent. In Path's case, they were in breech of the guidelines by not doing it.

Had path added a popup with what they intended to do with your contacts with an accept/deny button, things would be fine.

To further...

If apps have to be APPROVED by Apple and Apple has guidelines - then Apple (in my opinion) is just as liable for a breech in security. If you're going to have a TOS - it's up to you (Apple) to enforce it.

[lilo777]

After a week of silence, Apple has finally responded to reports that iOS apps like Path and Twitter access user contact data without permission.
“Apps that collect or transmit a user’s contact data without their prior permission are in violation of our guidelines,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AllThingsD. “We’re working to make this even better for our customers, and as we have done with location services, any app wishing to access contact data will require explicit user approval in a future software release.”

Do you get it? It'll become even better (i.e. implying that you already have it so good )

[Winter Charm]

I think it is PERFECTLY reasonable to have the same system for personal information that iOS has for accessing location.

"This app is requesting access to your ___________"
Allow or Deny?

that blank can be replaced with:
1. Address Book
2. Photos
3. Music Library
4. Location
5. Personal information (includes Notes, Reminders, email and SMS conversations, calendar events, etc.)

If you deny, it can be:

"this app requires you enter __________ or create an account to work, please manually enter your email address in the field below"


So, it's totally feasible. And you can have toggles for it, just like you do for location.

At least apple has an approval process for apps. On Android, this issue is totally rampant... It's disturbing to see it here, too.


EDIT: Regarding this: “Apps that collect or transmit a user’s contact data without their prior permission are in violation of our guidelines,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AllThingsD. “We’re working to make this even better for our customers, and as we have done with location services, any app wishing to access contact data will require explicit user approval in a future software release.”

I'm GLAD. Good job, Apple. I fully expect this in 5.1