5 ms·
I agree about the outrage part. There may not be malicious intent from Path, but I do think that there's a better way of allowing users to control their data. A
by keyboardP 14y ago
I agree about the outrage part. There may not be malicious intent from Path, but I do think that there's a better way of allowing users to control their data. A simple extra option of "include location data from photos" would mitigate this entire scenario.
- MBCook 14y ago> There may not be malicious intent from Path Malicious implies they're trying to do harm, which I don't think is the case. But geotagging posts when the user clearly didn't authorize you to access that information is dubious and underhanded at a minimum. After last year's incident, they've lost all benefit of doubt.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- thedufer 14y agoI agree based on a dictionary definition of malicious, but I think people are using it here to mean "things that they know users explicitly don't want and are doing anyway". Having privacy settings and then completely ignoring them might not be malicious - you don't intend to harm your customers, only to increase your profits in some way - but I think that common usage of the word "malicious" would include that case.
- Me1000 14y agoI think you'll see an update shortly that will fix this issue; which is clearly just an overlooked bug. I think you'll also see iOS patching the issue soon too.
- keyboardP 14y agoThat was a quick response from them and they've submitted an update that fixes the issue (which was unknown to them). https://eeqj.com/20130201/path-privacy/#comment-786209180 https://eeqj.com/20130201/path-privacy/#comment-786209180