Day: August 25, 2009

Absolutely shocking iPhone privacy holes

Following on the heels of the Writing for the City Brights blog, Yobie Benjamin pens a very damning attack against the iPhone from a privacy advocate standpoint. His article is an easy read even for those relatively unfamiliar with concepts such as cookies.

The single most horrifying thing I have yet to read about Apple or the iPhone, however, is summed up by this quote from the article:

I know what these tracking tools can enable iPhone developers and it’s pretty powerful and devious. If you’re privacy advocate, it’s bad. It’s really very bad.

Why is it bad?

For the most part, if you like your privacy – there is no opt-out feature unless you have a jailbroken/unlocked (more later on this) iPhone.

Combine this with the fact that jailbreaking is something Apple really doesn’t want you to do (from their point of view, the iPhone still technically belongs to them in a way because of the OS on it, another reason to condemn the use of the misleading and loaded term “intellectual property”), and all of a sudden, Apple doesn’t look a whole lot better than many other large corporations when it comes to concern for the privacy of their customers.

Yobie goes on to give a specific example using TwitterFon in which the iPhone’s UDID (serial number) is sent no less than three times to three different places. And unless one is willing to roll the dice and jailbreak one’s iPhone, there is no way to opt-out of this.

There is no “privacy” menu on a standard iPhone; this is something added by those who made the jailbreaking programs. The single most responsible thing Apple can do to regain some of my respect–and the respect of just about anyone with any significant concerns about their privacy–is add this option to the stock iPhone OS.

I’d like to think Apple hasn’t grown too big to give a damn. Especially in light of the fact Apple charges a premium for their hardware and software, I think Apple should be held to a higher standard than most similar companies. Not surprisingly, I think they have fallen far short of it.

The story of the stray apostrophes

I can see this one happening in the US, too.

The Daily Mail reports on a well-meaning resident of a street called St. John’s Close, off of St. John’s Road, near St. John’s Church. The residents insist upon naming it St. Johns Close–without the apostrophe.

Stefan Gatward objected quite vocally to the motion of Birmingham’s council to eschew the apostrophes for “simplicity.” And then Stefan got some black paint, and painted the apostrophes onto the signs missing them, in error according to him.

In return for his grammatical corrections, Stefan gets branded a “vandal” and a “graffiti artist.” Stefan was also told the Post Office would not deliver to the street if you put in an apostrophe, a claim I personally have difficulty believing and which sounds outrageous on its face. But then again, this is the UK we’re talking about.

My take: consistency wins over simplicity any day. If simplicity is really that desirable, why not get rid of the “s” and call it simply St. John Close while you’re at it? That would make everyone happy, I’d think.