I never cared too much for privacy, but that's one step too far. Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible. Hopefully this will create a market for ISPs that want to protect you. I see VPN markets growing even more.
> Lawmakers probably don't understand how this makes them a target, and how their own information will be accessible.
Your "will be" should be changed to "has been." The data selling was possible (100% guaranteed to be occurring rather) prior to Trump's election for example.
Honestly, it seems that sometimes Google lives on another planet, and have no idea what their customers want. Here's what all google customer want... they want to see their apps improved and updated, and NOT replaced by more apps.
Maybe their plan is... if we make Hangouts worse, than we can make them use Allo and Duo. I know 0 people using those two apps. Even people with Pixel phones are not using it.
That and the fact that any app you download now adds you to their newsletter list. Just because I wanted to try your app, it doesn't mean I want to get tons e-mails from your company. It's so frustrating I stopped trying apps, and instead only download what I really need and/or trust.
Have you ever tried to make a business out of selling an app online or in an app store? How did you get users?
I definitely don't agree with "tons" of e-mails but a few promotional emails is understandable. I also don't agree with the tactics used in the article, to be clear.
Why is the company's inability to get users my problem? Those emails get flagged and placed in spam, where they belong? Spam is never "understandable". Get an (explicit, non-dark-pattern) opt in or you're spam.
Until Marshmallow it had no permission system at all - every app gets access to everything it wants. That's every contact's full details, your full details, all your SMS messages, your location at all times, your email address (you could see a list of what they access, at least, but couldn't stop them).
It finally became more iOS-like in Marshmallow, but first your phone has to actually get the update, then the app has to actually update to target Marshmallow or above. It doesn't retroactively apply to older apps, and Google didn't enforce that apps start supporting it - they only have to if they want to use Marshmallow specific features.
(You do have the option of manually blocking access in Settings, but you have to actively do it for every app before the app ever runs, and you'll get warnings that the app might simply break).
It's something I've frequently pointed to when Android users said that "Android gets everything first". I was enjoying my permission system back in 2008.
It's the main reason I use an iPhone, it's actually why I switched back after some time using Android (after the iPhone finally got custom keyboards). Finally, as more and more apps update, Android will become viable for me again. However, I still take issue with having to put my real name on app reviews on Android.
Android pre-M had a permission system, it's just that the permissions had to be granted by the user when the app was installed (or updated, if there was a change). Many or most users didn't read the warnings or didn't care. I'd wager most users don't read the new permission dialogs, either, but what're ya gonna do.
It had a "permission system" that in effect did not provide the user with any practical choice. The non-choice was between "install this app and give everything it wants (even in the background)" and "piss off".
I did include that in my comment. The "system" was the list of things the app got access to if you installed it. And that's it. You couldn't grant or not grant permissions, it was just a warning of what was going to happen either way if you installed it. And essential apps like Facebook would ask for absurd permissions like phone.
The only choice you had was "install the app anyway" or "don't install".
This clock seems rather opinionated. What happens at midnight? Or better... what if nothing happens? And how would this work anyway... some country launches the first nuke, and someone goes running to update the clock to midnight?
Sweet. I saw a 2k17/18 on another site. So that gets my hopes up. I'm a casual gamer, and this seems to be a good in between full console vs mobile gaming.
I've stopped using them for similar reasons. I don't mind them adding all the fees as much. But it's wrong for the original price listed by them to be so far off from what you will actually pay. You see something listed for $15, and end up paying $30.
That's misleading and should be prohibited. Unfortunately this seems to be common practice in most marketing now ... smartphone plans come to mind...
This kind of news makes me smile. Not because I agree with the wrongdoing, but because nobody likes annoying ads... specially when a big news/network site decides to show the most "clickbaity" fake ads instead of anything relevant to me.
