Huh? Which last sentence are you referring to?
And in android you need to grant explicit permissions for apps to do just about anythinng. What's wrong with that?
Huh? Which last sentence are you referring to?
And in android you need to grant explicit permissions for apps to do just about anythinng. What's wrong with that?
The last sentence of the tos. Nothing is wrong with it, that is exactly how it works on iOS as well.
Well I don't have the TOS since I don't have any Apple product.
Can you quote it please?
WTF, it's not important, it's the last sentence in the quote I posted (from the TOS). You need to opt-in to grant permission explicitly for any application including system apps to share your location. It's also in the link I posted on the last page..
Note the "For example". Very nice misleading wording trick IMHO.For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
For another example, we may also share your geographic location with application providers to give you targeted ads, send you pictures of your supposedly local girls, or send flyers to your house, without your permission.
Subsonics, this text refers to the Apple's privacy policy. The question I put is this: Does this change permit Apple to collect user location data by default, even for users that don't use services or products that require localized-based features?
The text is very explicit that Apple itself or its partners will collect this data for the benefit of location-based services. But is this an iOS4 feature? And will it send data by default even if the user doesn't have, or doesn't want to use, location-based services? Does the user need to explicitly turn it off on that case?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
@cyberfish
It's to clarify what may happen if you do opt-in on an app, including system apps that use geo-location data. The variety of what can happen depends on the amount of apps available. If you use applications that share your location, it's shared. It's the same for any gps app of course. Use some common sense here.
Last edited by Subsonics; 06-24-2010 at 08:49 PM.
You need to explicitly allow applications to share your data. That's why I feel that the question is blown way out of proportion.Originally Posted by Mario F.
I have used quite a few GPS based apps on my new Nexus One, and I don't need to check the Android TOS to tell you it doesn't include that line.
There is nothing in the TOS that says you need to opt-in at all. The last line is an example. An example does NOT add anything to the agreement. It's usually used to clarify. It gives you a SUBSET of possibilities.
"I like all fruits. For example, oranges."
Does that mean I only like oranges?
"We can collect share, and use location data. For example, with your permission."
Does that mean they can't do it without your permission?
I said an example is USUALLY used to clarify, because in this case it's clearly used to mislead, because
1) It doesn't clarify anything ("we may share geographic location with application providers" is not any clearer than "Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data").
2) If they meant they still require your permission, they would put the opt-in part as rest of the statement, NOT part of the example.
Very shady in my opinion.
Ok, so we are discussing privacy and personal integrity here and Google is the good guy? I don't wan't to be the defender of Apple here, I just tell you how I interpret this. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out over the next months or so. IMO, it's added by Apple to cover their asses in the event that someone experience something unexpected as a result of using a geo-location aware application. But that is my interpretation.
No, this has nothing to do with Google.
It's about Apple and their TOS.
You can interpret it as they will send you a turkey every week for free, too.
But the terms clearly say they will NOT require your permission, because you are ALREADY giving your permission.
NOTHING in the text says you have to opt-in. The example is a trick to lead you to imply that, and has no legal significance.
Yes it does since you are contrasting it with android.
That is how the operating system works. Look at any legal texts and you will find this sort ambiguity.
I only talked about Android because you linked to the unrelated page about Android. This is about Apple.Yes it does since you are contrasting it with android.
For example?That is how the operating system works. Look at any legal texts and you will find this sort ambiguity.
Legal texts should NOT be ambiguous. And in this case, it is not even ambiguous at all. You are implying exactly what they want you to imply by providing that example.
If I can show you that this happens on other platforms and articles that are basically fud exists there as well, it give a valuable balance in the discussion IMO.
"Whenever location data is being accessed, you get an indicator in the status bar. And in Settings → General → Location Services you get a listing of every app with location privileges, the ability to turn it off, and an indicator for each app that has accessed your location within the last 24 hours."
It's ambiguous since it have offered you some wild interpretations.
Look, it's not possible to "win" this discussion. It's only going to be your point of view against mine, so let's stop here.
I agree, and you haven't.If I can show you that this happens on other platforms and articles that are basically fud exists there as well, it give a valuable balance in the discussion IMO.
Yes, that means you will be notified after the fact."Whenever location data is being accessed, you get an indicator in the status bar. And in Settings → General → Location Services you get a listing of every app with location privileges, the ability to turn it off, and an indicator for each app that has accessed your location within the last 24 hours."
I disagree. In this case, I am clearly rightIt's ambiguous since it have offered you some wild interpretations.
Look, it's not possible to "win" this discussion. It's only going to be your point of view against mine, so let's stop here.. Let's argue about it some more, since that's the point of forums.
There is only one difference in our "interpretations."
The text says,
We can collect and share your location data. For example, we can do it with your permission.
First of all, do you agree with this simplification?
If not, what part of the original text do you think I over-simplified, and should be added in?
