Thread: The world according to Steve Jobs

Hey, legal genius I'm pretty sure it's an example.

Would you care to clarify what you meant?

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's an example, too. I came up with that example.

So do you think I can eat your icecream in the winter or not?

Originally Posted by cyberfish

There is the opt in part. If you use Google Maps, Google may receive information about your location.

Nothing ambiguous about it.

"such as"

Then read the paragraph above, it privacy policy only apply to Googles own services not a 3rd party.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Apple is saying, as long as you want to use the iPhone, Apple can get your location without further approval from you, AND they can share it with anyone they choose. And that's what most people have problems with.

That is not what they are saying that is what you are reading into it.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Would you care to clarify what you meant?

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's an example, too. I came up with that example.

So do you think I can eat your icecream in the winter or not?

No, I think you should be careful when you are trying to make "equivalent" parallels that is still legally binding. As we discussed not to many posts back.

it privacy policy only apply to Googles own services not a 3rd party.

Exactly.

That is not what they are saying that is what you are reading into it.

That's why we are trying to sort it out.

No, I think you should be careful when you are trying to make "equivalent" parallels that is still legally binding. As we discussed not to many posts back.

There is nothing legal about this. Both the original line and my example are plain good old English without any legal mumbo jumbo.

It's a simple exercise in English, and has nothing to do with legality.

What do you think would be a better parallel, then?

Or can you suggest another way to understand the original without trying to come up with a simple parallel?

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Exactly.

So if you are using apps from the android marketplace you don't know what applies.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

That's why we are trying to sort it out.

Well I have been saying to you that we look at it differently. That's it.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

There is nothing legal about this. Both the original line and my example are plain good old English without any legal mumbo jumbo.

It's a simple exercise in English, and has nothing to do with legality.

What do you think would be a better parallel, then?

Or can you suggest another way to understand the original without trying to come up with a simple parallel?

Reading it in the context of the whole and based on what I know about the OS, it works just like Android. You have to opt-in, historic activity is recorded and you can turn the feature on or off.

So if you are using apps from the android marketplace you don't know what applies.

You know it doesn't apply. Meaning Google CANNOT get your location info. Whatever deal you make with the application developer is your own business. In this sense, Google is like just another app developer. If you don't like their privacy policy, just don't use their apps. You can still use their phone with other apps all you want.

Well I have been saying to you that we look at it differently. That's it.

And I think you are wrong, so I'm trying to expose the inconsistency in your interpretation by comparing it to how you would interpret a simple sentence with the same construct.

And so far you have just been dodging it by saying I don't know what I am talking about, so whatever example I come up with are wrong, even though you don't know exactly how are they wrong.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

You know it doesn't apply. Meaning Google CANNOT get your location info. Whatever deal you make with the application developer is your own business.

Yeah, and that is the exact purpose of the new segment in the Apple Tos, to point this out.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

And I think you are wrong, so I'm trying to expose the inconsistency in your interpretation by comparing it to how you would interpret a simple sentence with the same construct.

And so far you have just been dodging it by saying I don't know what I am talking about, so whatever example I come up with are wrong, even though you don't know exactly how are they wrong.

I know you think I'm wrong lol. I think you need to be careful to change a text and saying it's equivalent according to the law with out formal training. That's why I said earlier that we'll have to see how this pans out. And that it's pointless to discuss, but you wanted to continue, but with out the necessary tools to make it meaningful IMO.