Apple, Google, RIM plaster privacy warnings on prying apps Mobile software that meddles with your sensitive info must have privacy polices and must display them clearly, California's Attorney General Kamala Harris declared yesterday in a statement agreed by all major app sellers. Under the new rule, anyone downloading a program from Apple, Android, RIM, Windows, HP or Amazon stores …
Maybe not, but at least a start has been made on accountability. From the other stories recently about this group or that group not properly vetting apps it is clear that there is no consistency on where the buck stops when sub-optimal processes are discovered. By requiring a provacy warning then you have a launchpad to decide whether any problems are accident or design and the AppStores can sit back a little after defining minimum standards for the warning.
Also gives developers a chance to experiment with 'Soul-catcher' clauses as see who notices :)
I would comment on this but I haven't filled in the 38 ten-page forms that have to be hand-printed in blue or black ink and faxed to an overseas number that charges me $3.56 per page to my phone and then must be officially ignored thrice before not being processed.
Mine's the one with the passport so I can go to a country where there is less paperwork. Like Somalia or China.
Well obviously you'd want a map app to do that, which is why the light would be lit.
When wishing to download a map app you'd think to yourself:
"Well the GPS icon is lit, good. But why on Earth does it want access to my contacts?"
"Why on Earth does [APP Name Here] want access to my contacts, my ID, my location, etc."
Don't need silly icons and warnings. We need a configurable app permissions system where the app can request access to contacts and you can tap "NO!" and to discover known accounts to which you can reply "STFUAD!" and to burp it all on to full internet access with saying "Not bloody likely, and AdMod can kiss my ... too!".
IF THE USER IS EMPOWERED TO SAY "NO", then privacy policies and pretty icons are much less relevant, and the end result will be much more useful than trust. If trust was so good, the app wouldn't be looking at this sensitive stuff in the first place.
The problem of incomprehensible policies can be handled simply by stating that an app which displays a privacy policy which the average user can't understand or which doesn't state the essentials up-front (eg refers to Ts&Cs elsewhere) is by definition a breach of the privacy regulations.
from the tone of this article and the title, i'm under the impression that this is specifically targeting apps that gather personal data without it being obvious to the user?
does it include the scenario where the user types in the information? does having the user link something like their Facebook id to the app fall under this policy? or is that okay because it specifically requires the user to input data so they are clearly aware on whats happening?
just seems to be this policy is probably a good thing, but it's a bit vague on where it applies - or perhaps i missed that paragraph in the statement...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
