It seemed pretty factual to me. I wouldn't exactly call it fear-mongering, an actual portrayal of the situation is fear-educing enough. It would be irresponsible for Ars to not point out the ways this data could be compromised and the severity of that happening.
>Yes, the file should not be in the clear
No, that file should not exist at all.
>When we know something is being sent to Apple, we can turn on the hate.
So it doesn't matter that they're collecting the data to begin with? At all? I'd prefer to be asked for permission, not for forgiveness after the fact. Only what they decide to do with it matters? Even though they've left it lying around for a year in a format you admit was inadequate?
The problem I have is I don't see it as "they" are collecting the information. It is information I am collecting on my phone (until proven otherwise). Concerns about Michegan abusing my data should engender outrage...at Michegan for violating the fourth amendment.
I'm not keen on the file and will take steps to nuke it, since I jailbreak. I just thing the the level of anger is premature, until we know why the file exists (eg does it give me a better experience) or we know Apple or Google are taking the data off my phone.
>I don't see it as "they" are collecting the information.
This is an interesting distinction, that I don't really know where I stand. _They_ wrote the software, but it runs on a device _you_ choose to own and operate.
Allow me to as a few hypothetical questions, that I don't want to imply relate to this situation, but instead challenge some notions of who the actor is in their context: If I get a virus that encrypts my files and demands ransom, did I do it to myself? Do I run my website, or do I tell my hosting provider how to run it? If I have a device that uses TPM to make me completely unable to change, modify or understand what the code on it does, am I the one performing the actions of the software or is the writer? If I compute 2+2 serverside vs in javascript clientside, does that change who is doing the adding? If it is the owner of the device is the actor, what if the software is (unbeknownst to the user) stealing credit card numbers from the POS terminal it is installed on. Who is legally responsible then?
Software operates on its own, and can do so simultaneously for more than one party, with potentially conflicting interests. I think our shuffle to the cloud is going to run into some complex ownership, responsibility, liability and transparency questions soon, I'm interested to see how it all shakes out.
Comments
It seemed pretty factual to me. I wouldn't exactly call it fear-mongering, an actual portrayal of the situation is fear-educing enough. It would be irresponsible for Ars to not point out the ways this data could be compromised and the severity of that happening.
>Yes, the file should not be in the clear
No, that file should not exist at all.
>When we know something is being sent to Apple, we can turn on the hate.
So it doesn't matter that they're collecting the data to begin with? At all? I'd prefer to be asked for permission, not for forgiveness after the fact. Only what they decide to do with it matters? Even though they've left it lying around for a year in a format you admit was inadequate?
The problem I have is I don't see it as "they" are collecting the information. It is information I am collecting on my phone (until proven otherwise). Concerns about Michegan abusing my data should engender outrage...at Michegan for violating the fourth amendment.
I'm not keen on the file and will take steps to nuke it, since I jailbreak. I just thing the the level of anger is premature, until we know why the file exists (eg does it give me a better experience) or we know Apple or Google are taking the data off my phone.
>I don't see it as "they" are collecting the information.
This is an interesting distinction, that I don't really know where I stand. _They_ wrote the software, but it runs on a device _you_ choose to own and operate.
Allow me to as a few hypothetical questions, that I don't want to imply relate to this situation, but instead challenge some notions of who the actor is in their context: If I get a virus that encrypts my files and demands ransom, did I do it to myself? Do I run my website, or do I tell my hosting provider how to run it? If I have a device that uses TPM to make me completely unable to change, modify or understand what the code on it does, am I the one performing the actions of the software or is the writer? If I compute 2+2 serverside vs in javascript clientside, does that change who is doing the adding? If it is the owner of the device is the actor, what if the software is (unbeknownst to the user) stealing credit card numbers from the POS terminal it is installed on. Who is legally responsible then?
Software operates on its own, and can do so simultaneously for more than one party, with potentially conflicting interests. I think our shuffle to the cloud is going to run into some complex ownership, responsibility, liability and transparency questions soon, I'm interested to see how it all shakes out.