Re: "opt-out was probably the best choice"
Read the bloody article!
They are not including the IP address.
Look this is actually well written and informative - why would you not actually read it?
12 posts • joined 19 Nov 2013
The lower power consumption, and weight/size reduction will be useful for anyone wanting to use it for robotics projects (the "A" was already very popular for this).
It is tempting to think the "B" (or "B+") is always better, but it does depend on what you want to do with it, sometimes the "A" was better, I think for most of those times the "A+" is quite the upgrade.
Or the patent is "defensive". Essentially, Apple think they might want to do this - so they patent the idea, so if some product-less yahoo patents the idea they can't sue Apple for damages.
You see this is how the (broken) patent system works now. If you have an idea, that you make into a product you'd better have patented it.
Assuming this comes to market (BIG ASSUMPTION) you might use it for devices that don't include that technology (older devices or anything other than "5s" in the current lineup).
I see this as an enabler for sales of related "home automation" items (see other post). So it is in Apple's interest to bring this to users of older devices.
Possibly just gives a "we trust this place" back to the app. The app probably has to ask for GPS coordinates if it needs them - as that's a different "do you want to share your location with <app name>?" type situation.
Or (more likely) we're talking about unlocking the device (so apps have no knowledge of location security status).
Well, the idea is you probably don't want some random stranger who finds your phone being able to see everything stored on it (after all, it's really a pocket computer - that happens to also make calls). So you set a password. But when you're sat in the squaller of your own abode, you probably don't want to have to enter the password every time you want to use your phone. So, as the phone has a GPS chip in it, why not see if you are at home before insisting on the password.
Seems like a "small win". However, Apple's plan is to get you to use your phone for pretty much everything - a kind of universal remote on steroids. You can see that this plan is going to be a total pain if you need to endlessly prove who you are before you can: turn the heat on, pause that movie you're streaming, or turn the lights on. So have the phone run with less security when you (and it) are safely ensconced in your council flat makes that dream easier for us (and hence more profitable for Apple).
Now is this a "good thing"? I don't know, I guess - given how often you get some pointless company calls you when you are trying to watch some ultimately disappointing film. Perhaps they'd be better off creating "iSlob" that watches the film for you and then tells you: "it's rubbish, you didn't miss much".
A couple of things actually:
One is the more permissive policies. You can "side-load" apps, and while that has an upside (you don't need Google's approval for anything you install) some of these apps will contain "bad stuff", and unlike stuff from the official Google Play Store the isn't even retrospective policing from Google. Also software has more access to the device, the classic example is custom keyboards. Though Apple have a facility for this coming in iOS8, though without knowing more about it I cannot comment about the security implications.
Another problem is "customised" versions of Android. Here this means that devices never get updates (that contain security fixes) or get them very much later. It is this that lead to the quote. It is also true that OEM customisations are often of a far lower quality than Google's own Android base code, often leading to security flaws being introduced.
So if you do want an Android device there are things you can do to keep the device safer:
Don't side-load applications.
Choose either a locked down implementation (Kindle) or a Nexus device.
It would be nice to see some research on the malware situation for both (supported) Nexus devices and Kindle devices vs "other Android".
Well, the perp would also have needed to "jailbreak" the iPad (and that could be spotted). I'm not sure anything else would actually work.
This is actually at the essence of why the iPad is the way it is. The design is intended to take all the "computer stuff" away from the experience of the iPad.
There is no chrome when you switch apps (no "windowing").
There is no (visible) file system (so no USB drive support).
There is no plugin support (as you'd need to update it).
Applications are sandboxed (makes MOST malware impossible).
Applications have tightly controlled multitasking (makes a lot more malware impossible).
System services are not extendable (another potential attack vector cut off).
Now these decision (and others) do limit what the platform can do - something like Android's virtual keyboard replacement "Swype" can't work on an iPad. But there is an upside, often in security - in the "Swype" example the same mechanism that stops it also stops "keyloggers".
So in this case, an iPad seems like a perfect system. Of course, this doesn't make an iPad perfect for EVERYTHING sometimes the things that aren't allowed on the iOS are exactly what is required. But in truth, such requirements are not universal.
You just need to think it through (Samsung style). A Galaxy Note 3 is required. The Galaxy Note 3 is too big to fit in a pocket. So what's Miley to do? Simple, she slips her Galaxy Note 3 into her Louis Vuitton bag. Simple!
Clearly you're not thinking like a Samsung Diva (go have a couple of glasses of Cristal, that should help).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019