Right on. The BBC article should link to this. Better that Google nabs unsecured data without intent that someone else with intent. Too much hype.
What's worse than nabbing private packets is Google sticking a camera on a 10 foot pole and drive down residential back lanes where the camera can see over fences into private backyards and in some cases into living rooms. This happened in my town, to my house, and I felt my privacy was invaded. Google street view can see a lot more than someone walking along the street because nobody but Google is 10 feet tall.
> Google sticking a camera on a 10 foot pole ... Google street view can see a lot more than someone walking along the street because nobody but Google is 10 feet tall.
No one else has 10 foot poles or can attach cameras to them?
Good of you to say, and it's good to hear things are going swimmingly since you removed it.
The whole idea of accountability is in my opinion flawed when it comes to casual contributions from internet participants. The word "accountability" is heavy-handed, and has a presumptuous tone of expectation of wrong-doing, an ever-looming threat of penalty if one steps out of line.
"Say the wrong thing, and YOU YES YOU will be held ACCOUNTABLE."
Real name enforcement is an ALL CAPS effort to force "accountable" behavior at the expense of privacy or just comfortable contributions from users. When our words end up set in stone online, and when many of us are not professional writers, signing one's real identity to a casual opinion may be a hazardous activity.
This is the internet. We don't need to be so uptight. On the whole, communities behave respectfully when the community is respected and valued, regardless of public display of real names.
Yep I like that thinking - no walls and distances on the internet. To take your example a step further, a google search and our boss sees what dance club we attended, sees photos of our last messy night there, and see our comments on pillreports (in a hypothetical case of having a bit too much fun one full moon, and posting about it before the sun comes up). There's a time and place for real names, and it's not most of the time online.
Hang on a second, what if the interviewee doesn't have a Facebook account? Or just lies and says they don't have one? Would the next question be "why not" or "show us your email in-box"?
Don't tell me that not having a Facebook account now weighs against your eligibility in an interview? That would be sad. What next? Everyone must have a FB account by law?
And why didn't Braithwaite just not ask the candidates the FB question?
"Fired for refusing to invade interviewee privacy"
is better than
"resigns after invading interviewee privacy".
Edit... so apparently it's all fiction. Time wasted.
@zdw, I hope you're not suggesting that native iOS apps have better accessibility than Flash? That's not the case. Flash is way out in front of native apps for accessibility.
Good closed caption support via external file or cue points, strong keyboard control, mouse pointer/cursor appearance manipulation, versatile multi-channel audio.
Apple did no favors by excluding Flash from Safari. When a website contains Flash, it's in everyone's interest, including blind users, that the Flash object is loaded successfully if the user wishes it so. That should be obvious.
Check the Adobe site for "Flash accessibility design guidelines".
Screen reader technology is evolving too remember. Of course there would need to be capabilities added to iOS Safari, such as screen reader plugin. But that the Flash accessibility problem has been addressed on desktop now, but no one seems to have noticed!
"When a screen reader encounters content created with Flash, it loads the current state of the movie and notifies the user. With the Window-Eyes screen reader, the user hears, "Loading…load done." Once a piece of content has been read, the screen reader moves on to read other parts of the content and the rest of the page."
"Adobe worked with GW Micro to create a Halt Flash Events keystroke (Alt+Shift+M) for the Window-Eyes screen reader. This keystroke allows a screen reader user to suspend Flash notifications on the page. Pressing the keystroke again allows the user to resume Flash notifications..."
I tend to agree. It can depend though on circumstances and personality types. I think we can adjust feedback methods depending on who is involved, how well we know each other, and so on.
That said, some people try too hard "not to be a dick", and while nice and polite, they end up supplying watered down, fence-sitting, egg-shell treading fluff instead of useful down-to-earth efficient feedback.
Some designers get emotional. That's good - but they need to learn to channel that emotion into reasoning and solid foundation arguments to support why they did what they did. If they can't do that, they need to work with people who can assist them in doing that.
A colleague once used "intuition" as her rationale for a design/IA decision that was going to negatively impact on technical work I had to do. My criticism was harsh in reply, and I'm sure she thought I was "a dick". Well, that's just tough. Build a bridge and let's move on to the next task. All intuitive decisions can be unscrambled or decoded to find their basis. Especially true in design environments where you're working within defined limitations, scope and objectives. If you can't find a basis, then unload the criticism, keep our humor, and let's solve the problem rather than mess around.
Mobile web apps should work in more places than safari on the iPhone. Otherwise call it a "mobile safari app".
I tried the app in mobile Firefox, no luck. I tried it mobile Opera, no go. Also, I don't understand why anyone would use Apple's native interface graphics on purpose for a web app. I get why native dev it makes things easier to build than custom icons etc, but on the web, you are not on Apple's leash no more, be free!
Nobody gets 200 emails per day all directly asking for something. If you do, as already said, that's a process and staffing issue, not email's fault.
The good thing about the old subject line of an email is that you usually can tell whether it's something you need to look at now or save for later, move to another folder, or delete. You can also quickly see whether you are the main target or just CC'd.
Speed reading can also assist in processing email. Sometimes you just know whether you need to read something thoroughly, or can glance over.
AS an FYI -- I was working on the largest merger between two US banks. 150-200 emails a day was a standard for many people making it almost impossible to digest all the information.
Speed reading, as you suggest, would not be a good solution to finding mission-critical information. As far as I know, no collaboration tool exists that could handle the complexity that we were dealing with. We tried quite a few, and pushed SharePoint to its limit.
I like it how it is because filters and sensible organising of inboxes is not hard.
Not interested in email streams at all. I'd prefer to keep streams for the kind of information that doesn't require action or response frequently per item. Emails often require action or attention, and it's far better they exist as subject line items in a date-ordered list for easy retrieval, sorting and archiving all at once.
But I'd like to take my stream like conversations back to a simple, open, distributed (in the sense of server control) protocol like SMTP and away from Facebook Messenger (for example).
It's just a bit of message passing, why should email NOT also handle multiple participants and almost-real-time conversations well?
Twitter is a different beast, it's a public stream, but what does FB messenger offer over email, other than an improved user experience? (for some value of improved...)
Agreed. But you're being too kind on Apple. This is the worst privacy breach from Apple in iPhone's history.
No point blaming app programmers. The functionality for apps to acquire the address book without asking shouldn't exist.
Dear Apple, thank you for protecting me from adult material in the app store. But, can you... er, this is awkward... can you NOT GIVE MY ADDRESS BOOK AWAY WITHOUT MY PERMISSION? Thanks. And sorry for yelling, it's just, y'know, my address book and all.
The app programmers do have to take the blame. Those breaches of privacy have always been possible on desktop PCs but app programmers usually didn’t do them because that would make them a pariah.
I do not know why developers for mobile apps suddenly think that has changed. But they do. That’s certainly a problem and Apple should react to it quickly. The culprit, though, are still the developers who overstepped a pretty clear line.
Well, yes, but unlike on your iPhone you could actively do something against it. E.g. let outlook encrypt your address book, change the addressbook access permissions etc.
it was trivial to bar anyone/thing from accessing your address book without having to remove the software you want to use.
On the iphone, you can only chose to install an app or not, if you chose to install, you have to accept anything that comes with it.
I think I did not make my point clear enough. It is trivial to make it inaccessible to programs who assume that it is easily accessible. I did not mean to include solely malicious programs.
If you stick your addressbook into a truecrypt container 100% of programs (i know there is no 100% security, but there is not enough space to spell out all 99.999999s) will not be able to access it anymore without you unlocking/mounting it first. Thus, requiring your permission.
What's worse than nabbing private packets is Google sticking a camera on a 10 foot pole and drive down residential back lanes where the camera can see over fences into private backyards and in some cases into living rooms. This happened in my town, to my house, and I felt my privacy was invaded. Google street view can see a lot more than someone walking along the street because nobody but Google is 10 feet tall.