Senator Asks Apple and Google to Require Clear Privacy Policies for Apps

[JAT]

It means that now, unfortunately. It's why the federal government has absolute legislative authority.

And it's controlled by big business. Kind of a circle thing.

Now think about your 80 year old grandma receiving those burns. The woman was 79 when she got that surprise.

Both of my grandmas seemed smart enough (they've been gone awhile) not to grip hot coffee in a paper cup strongly between their thighs. There's a reason that settled out of court, legislating stupidity is stupid. If someone does something stupid in front of me, injuring himself, I'll feel sorry for the injury, but don't tell me it's my fault. I really wish people would stop quoting this dumb-ass case.

 

[Mak47]

The iPhone location warning should read as follows:

Your iPhone is equipped with special hardware that allows it to record your location for use by many popular applications. It is also a cellular telephone, which according to US law must have its location recorded and accessible to the various Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies at all times. This has been effect for over 10 years and is nothing new. If anyone in Congress actually did their jobs and read legislation--they would already know this.

P.S. Al Franken is a moron.

 

[Just "Vinnie"]

I like how a Senator can ask a company to simply be honest with their customers and it somehow sets off the MacRumors community as an unreasonable outrage.

LOL. Do you know what political posturing is? How about diversionary tactics that draw the voter's feeble minds away from the *real* issues this country faces?

Dear Al,

Leave corporate America alone and worry about the mess you were hired to fix. After all... as a "less-than-one-term" official you haven't much time left.


-Steve

Sent from my iPhone

 

[iEvolution]

Label: May cause drowsiness
Nytol sleeping pills

Label: This product may contain nuts
Peanut M&Ms

Label: This program may be able to locate your whereabouts (Al Frankin)
TomTom Navigation for iOS

We don't need additional warnings. We need people to become more personally aware for themselves:

You have a Cell Phone with a GPS chip in it and the phone contains memory? Well, one may conclude that there *could* be a possibility that the phone could log your location over time and store it somewhere in memory for later use. If you are paranoid, toggle location services off.

Should a coffee cup have really need warning for you that the contents may be hot?

Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots out there, for instance Benadryl GEL/CREAM was recalled because they had a couple hundred cases of people EATING it so they had to add a new label to the top that says "DO NOT EAT".

 

[ChrisA]

A problem is that developers use a framework that Apple provides. They can't really know the side effects of any API call they make. For example the location data that was saved. Developers would not know about it.

Most developers are small time outfits, many with no formal training oi security or even computer science. I think most of them could try and write a policy but many simply can't do a good job of it.

 

[ChrisA]

And it's controlled by big business. Kind of a circle thing.

Both of my grandmas seemed smart enough (they've been gone awhile) not to grip hot coffee in a paper cup strongly between their thighs. There's a reason that settled out of court, ...

Coffee typically is brewed at about 180F and served at about 160F. But some managers cheat. They want to slow down customer requests for re-fills so they serve it hotter than company policy allows. The woman was given an insulated cup with coffee that was over 200F. This was in direct violation of company standards an it was not a "normal" cup of coffee a customer would expect.

When you know this fact it is easy to see why it was and easy case because the jury would have been instructed to answer a few questions like

1) Did the manager know there was a danger? (yes of course he was trained about the proper severing temperature)

2) Could he have done something to correct it (Yes of course.)

3) did he make a decision NOT to correct it (yes of course)

 

[Northgrove]

I like how a Senator can ask a company to simply be honest with their customers and it somehow sets off the MacRumors community as an unreasonable outrage.

What a place we got here, huh?

They aren't being honest?

http://theilife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/iphonebeta5a292g.gif

This whole thing is puzzling to me...

How much more clear can they be?

If this is about the recent case of "Apple tracking", it wasn't tracking, since the info wasn't sent anywhere and it was just an approximation of your position to help the GPS in picking up your location more quickly. If it's about tracking and sending the info - you are already informed!

 

[gnasher729]

Most of these are either born out of litigation from some nitwit who spills a cup of coffee in a lap and believes a great injustice has been done because McDonalds hadn't warned her that Coffee was HOT!, or through some advocate in Congress that believes that the public is too stupid to think for themselves, thus requiring disclosure for every little thing.

And _you_ are calling people "nitwits"? If I make a cup of coffee at home and spill it, I will say "ouch that's hot". This woman got coffee from McDonald's that caused third degree burns.

McDonald's offered free refills for coffee. So if a customer ordered coffee, drank it, got another one, drank it, got another one, that would cut into profits. McDonald's solved that little problem by serving coffee that would be far too hot for human consumption for fifteen minutes, so people wouldn't ask for free refills. Before this case, McDonald's had already settled for unknown amounts in seven hundred cases, so there was clearly a pattern of McDonald's intentionally putting the health of customers at risk for profit.

Of course a label "Warning: Coffee is hot" doesn't solve that problem, and doesn't absolve a company from every responsibility. That particular problem is solved by serving coffee at a normal temperature. You couldn't run electricity in uninsulated wires, put up a warning, and get away with it.

In other words, McDonald's didn't get done for not putting up warning signs. They did get done for intentionally, knowingly creating a health risk far beyond the normal accepted risk, in order to increase profits.

Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots out there, for instance Benadryl GEL/CREAM was recalled because they had a couple hundred cases of people EATING it so they had to add a new label to the top that says "DO NOT EAT".

People make mistakes. Good design steers people away from mistakes, bad design steers them towards mistakes. So how come Benadryl had to be recalled, and other products didn't? Could bad design be a factor?

Back to the subject of this thread: I don't want "clear privacy policies". I want my privacy to be respected. I also don't want mouth-foaming idiots complaining about perceived privacy violations that aren't privacy violations at all at all. And I'd want politicians to educate themselves first and not trying to get on some mission to score points.

 

[Beaverfish]

What a joke. The politicians should force each other to write "clear and understandable" legislation that isn't 2,000 lines long the average isn't capable of comprehending. As always, hypocritical politicians getting in the way.

I completely agree

 

[d0minick]

What's next? A Federal Software Agency?

We did fine for decades without one, but I guess here it comes.

Personal computing has only been popular for about a decade and a half, and still I think we are stretching. So to say we have been fine for decades with out one is a pretty off statement.

And now that everything is being saved on data centers that belong to companies, consumers need a regulating agency more then ever.

No system, non-regulating and regulating will be perfect, and one type of genre(lack of a better word) will not necessarily be better for another. But I do think an agency would work, if made correctly and properly funded from the ground up. Or you can trust for profit companies with your data.

 

[janstett]

What a joke. The politicians should force each other to write "clear and understandable" legislation that isn't 2,000 lines long the average isn't capable of comprehending. As always, hypocritical politicians getting in the way.

"We have to pass [the 2700-page health care] bill so that you can, uh, find out what's in it." -- Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

I say developers should adopt that nonsense -- you have to install the app to find out what you agreed to.

I like how a Senator can ask a company to simply be honest with their customers and it somehow sets off the MacRumors community as an unreasonable outrage.

I guess government doesn't like competition in monitoring people?

 

[MorphingDragon]

It's only going to take one good event involving a data breach or personal information breach due to lack of digital privacy/security before the public really starts demanding that something be done to protect them from malicious programmers.

So the PSN cracking where millions of SSNs, addresses, names and credit card details were compromised was a figment of my imagination. Pretty sure that classifies as a major breach and all Sony got was a slap on the wrist.

Nothing can protect you from malicious intent, only slow it down.

 

[Island Dog]

A democrat wanting to regulate something else and interfere with business. Wow, didn't see that coming.... /sarc

 

[MarcelV]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

@WestonHarvey1 "I don't consider regulating software to be one of those things. That's far better left to developers and consumers."

Just like the cigarette industry, oil companies, health insurers regulating themselves? Yeah, great idea. It worked so well in those industries.

conceptually, there is nothing wrong with to know what the program does, what data it shares and where it is used for. Practically, not sure how this can be implemented in a non-intrusive clean way, eliminating annoyance to the end user.

 

[jimothyGator]

Unreasonable outrage?

I like how a Senator can ask a company to simply be honest with their customers and it somehow sets off the MacRumors community as an unreasonable outrage.

What a place we got here, huh?

Perhaps the outrage isn't so unreasonable. When politicians participate in the hypocrisy of "protecting" consumers' privacy from companies they voluntarily engage in business with while simultaneously allowing further privacy violations by government—where interaction is not voluntary and where we cannot realistically opt-out—the whole thing comes across as little more than insincere grandstanding.

Franken may be "asking" today, but how soon before he's demanding via legislation and further power grab by government?

 

[jimothyGator]

What are you talking about?

Right now companies like Google totally own us. You're asking me to believe that if congress wrestles a little bit of that control away it'll be a bad thing for me?

"Freedom?" Please. Don't tell me I have freedom just so you can act like a patriot or George Washington or something. The opposite of "the government owns you" isn't freedom. No, it's "a company owns you." Pick one or the other, I don't care, but don't try and tell me that "freedom" is some magical 3rd option.

I don't know about you, but Google sure as hell doesn't own me. I can choose to use Google's products and services, or not. I can choose to instead use a competitors products and services.

Where's my choice in government? I don't support bombing and killing Middle Easterners, but I can't opt-out and not pay for this wasteful slaughter. I don't support locking people up because they've chosen to buy or sell pot, but again, I can't opt-out of having my money taken to pay for these violations of people's freedom.

If Apple or Google, or any other company, receive my money, it's because I feel they've earned it. I make that decision. When the government receives my money, it's not because I feel the services they provide are all worth it, but because I have no choice. The money is taken from me; I do not voluntarily give it.

No, Google doesn't own me at all, and they don't own you, either.

 

[jimothyGator]

Of course the issue in Wickard v Filburn is whether his actions had an effect on interstate commerce. The federal interest was because they were trying to keep the entire farm economy from collapsing and causing a complete social breakdown. A drop in wheat prices would have had a tidal effect throughout the ag economy, especially in the late 30's. Filburn said he was growing it for his own use, but he was planting more acreage than he was allowed, and the feds determined that he was affecting commerce because the wheat prices would drop if that grain went to market. Prior restraint? Maybe. The feds may have been right, though. 20-20 hindsight and all. Not a simple issue at all.

Farming in general has always had kind of protected status in our economy because we can't under any circumstances allow a farm economy to crumble and starve the population, of which about 97% are non-farmers, and unable to feed themselves. And no seed stock for that backyard garden you think would tide you over.

Thank goodness that, during the Great Depression when people were standing in breadlines and starving, that the Federal Government had the brilliance to set wheat production and acreage quotas, order crops destroyed, and prevent farmers from growing their own food. One can only imagine the horror people would have faced if they weren't spared from the atrocity of affordable food.

 

[toddybody]

Disclaimer clarity is always important, and I'm 100% in favor of legislation that protects consumers accordingly...that said, the senate isn't mandating anything as of yet.

 

[Gasu E.]

And it's controlled by big business. Kind of a circle thing.

Both of my grandmas seemed smart enough (they've been gone awhile) not to grip hot coffee in a paper cup strongly between their thighs. There's a reason that settled out of court, legislating stupidity is stupid. If someone does something stupid in front of me, injuring himself, I'll feel sorry for the injury, but don't tell me it's my fault. I really wish people would stop quoting this dumb-ass case.

I received second degree burns on my MOUTH from McDonald's coffee before they turned the temperature down. No, I didn't sue. I guess I was too dumb not to know that I should put hot coffee in my MOUTH. I admit I WAS dumb in that this happened to me 2-3 times before I learned my lesson and stopped drinking McD's coffee.

 

[michaelsviews]

What a schmuck

What a joke. The politicians should force each other to write "clear and understandable" legislation that isn't 2,000 lines long the average isn't capable of comprehending. As always, hypocritical politicians getting in the way.

You took the words right out of my mouth, is he up for re-election? or what ?

Like our elected officials really give a hoot about Apple and Google collecting information.........

What a farce, another Dog & Pony show

 

[mingoglia]

What a joke. The politicians should force each other to write "clear and understandable" legislation that isn't 2,000 lines long the average isn't capable of comprehending. As always, hypocritical politicians getting in the way.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[farmboy]

Thank goodness that, during the Great Depression when people were standing in breadlines and starving, that the Federal Government had the brilliance to set wheat production and acreage quotas, order crops destroyed, and prevent farmers from growing their own food. One can only imagine the horror people would have faced if they weren't spared from the atrocity of affordable food.

Atrocity? Unfortunately for your premise, at the time of this case, 1941 or so, crops had been good enough for several years so that markets were full of food. The lean times were the first few years of the 1930's. Even then, starvation was quite rare, although being hungry among the less well off was not.

Historically, food costs in the US are well below the average compared to other industrialized nations. That was the case back then as well.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

There's a reason that settled out of court, legislating stupidity is stupid. If someone does something stupid in front of me, injuring himself, I'll feel sorry for the injury, but don't tell me it's my fault.

McDonald's settled after (1) rejecting the initial reasonable proposed amount of $20,000 and then (2) being publicly obliterated in court and made to look like callous ******s. They settled specifically to keep from having the outcome made public.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

The judge called McDonalds' conduct "reckless, callous and willful."

McDonalds has since changed the holding temp of their coffee to around 150 degrees. You don't hear about people suing them anymore over coffee burns, either.

I really wish people would stop quoting this dumb-ass case.

Hey, I didn't bring it up. I don't think people should quote it either, especially when people like you don't understand it. We've all spilled things or had things spilled on us at restaurants. Few of us have been hospitalized for a week because of it.

 

[farmboy]

Lexington (where the British first shot at and killed colonial minutemen on the town common) and Concord (where the colonial minutemen first shot at and killed British soldiers at the old north bridge) are adjoining towns IN MASSACHUSETTS. Each claims to be the location of the shot heard round the world, and it depends on whether you think the outrage of the British firing on colonists or the colonists being ballsy enough to shoot back later that morning is what the rest of the world took notice of. If you are going to try and sound smart, get your geography right.

Good god! Read a paper once in a while. Reference was to Bachmann's statements, not mine. I'm quite familiar with geography and history, but not her--and she wants desperately to be the Republican nominee for the presidency. I thought the joke was obvious, but apparently not to some people.

 

[MattInOz]

Back to the subject of this thread: I don't want "clear privacy policies". I want my privacy to be respected. I also don't want mouth-foaming idiots complaining about perceived privacy violations that aren't privacy violations at all at all. And I'd want politicians to educate themselves first and not trying to get on some mission to score points.

Hey I agree long wordy stupid privacy statements do nothing if the company has no intent of respecting that privacy. It really just gives them a chance to hide in plain sight what they plan to do. It gives them more defense than us. What would really help us in creating trust with a company is more information.

At the moment on iOS at least the it's a blanket choice but the developer can choose between three distinct types of location notification types. Once they have blanket use they can change at will. If an app is only asking for a low level of location accuracy they should be able to tell the user that and the system should only let them receive that. Put the user back in control.