Hacker News Reader

Comment by codedokode | Hacker News Reader

Imagine if you invited an electrician to your house to fix something, but he would secretly search for your documents and copied them. That is what many apps do today. They advertise themselves as a game or as a map app but secretly they spy on you or use your phone for their purposes.

View on HN

That's not a fair comparison. Imagine if you hired an electrician for no money, and you kept using them over and over again. I expect if I were to pay for an alternative to not have my privacy violated.

As Walmart has proven, people will choose cheaper over their own long term benefit (and especially the benefit of others)

> cheaper over their own long term benefit

You're assuming you know better than millions who believe cheaper IS in their long term benefit. Quite a sweeping statement!

You're believing those millions actually consciously make that decision. Quite a sweeping statement.

It doesn't matter. If an electrian says he will work for free it doesn't give him any special rights to do anything except his job.

It is sad that some people in Silicon Valley find it acceptable and ethical.

They don’t say they’ll work for free, they say they’ll work in exchange for your data, which they will then sell

Where do they come out and say that? Where do they put a message, in readable english, and not buried under a thousand other things, that says they'll do that?

I guess you could say they do that when they ask for permission to you camera, to your call list, etc...

Allowing the app to access the contact list doesn't mean that the user allows to upload call history to the server. Maybe they only want to add one of the people from their contact list.

I agree privacy policy details are opaque, but it takes the bare minimum of skimming to know if the policy is not giving up your data.

It should be clear as day what’s being collected and it’s a failing that it’s not, but there’s also the old adage of “if it’s too good to be true...” doing some due diligence when you’re promised the services of a billion dollar company that’s not charging you is prudent.

If you search for Facebook on Google Play then you'll see the word "free" under Facebook icon [1]. It is interesting ,that the app page [2] doesn't have this word, but it doesn't say that Facebook is going to upload your call list to the server either. So they advertise the app as "free".

[1] https://play.google.com/store/search?q=facebook&c=apps&hl=en

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.k...

... really?

Google asks devs how much an app costs to install not to use.

Even if the app has IAP the value gets rendered as “Free” with an additional notice.

On that note Google will also take down your app if it doesn’t have a comprehensive privacy policy. And it also requires that policy to be accessible without installing.

They’ve been cracking down on things as detailed as “leaking” clicked URL in troubleshooting logs.

I’m not here to astroturf for companies abusing jargon filled pages of legalese to get you to sign over rights to your data, but you don’t even need to read those to know: “If you’re not paying, you’re the product”. Doubly so if you’re using a service valued at billions of dollars.

I expect if I were to pay for an alternative to not have my privacy violated.

The whole free versus pay argument is sophistry. Many pay products usurp your privacy. Your television is selling your viewing habits. Your car telematics solution is selling your movements. That operating system is mining your activity to sell you things.

And many free products defend your privacy. Linux, VLC, Firefox, IPF, and on and on. More concerned for your privacy than any other product.

So can we please stop this binary differentiation. It isn't useful.

How are you using Uber without paying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com