Re: New report

[Bryan Betts]

This came into the group management address, it's from the newsdesk at
the Southport Reporter, http://www.southportreporter.com - has anyone
here experienced the sort of behaviour they describe?

On 02/02/2014 11:54 PM, new...@southportreporter.com wrote:
> We are doing a news report after being threatened by experian.com that they will "Disavow Link" all our websites if we do not remove their links on press reports to them on. We are contacting Google as we have a few other issues raised in our dealings.. One of the very odd things is that the link is not an active link, but just the name in normal html text format not hypertext. The other site that on the very same day contacted us was Moneysupermarket.com Our view is if this is the start of a campaign by SEO groups, it could effectively shut down many sites that archive news. Do you have any views on the way they are now asking for us to change our sites after in effect we helped them for free?

[Chris Wheal]

I always answer and just say no. End of story so far.

Chris Wheal
+447831268261
Sent from my iPhone

> --
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to FleetStreet...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FleetStreet
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FleetStreet" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fleetstreet...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Ben Tudor]

Here's what they're threatening:

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en

This article explains what's going on, I believe:

http://www.theawl.com/2013/12/the-new-spammer-panic

But yep, what Whealie said. 

[PJ White]

On 04/02/2014 11:31, Ben Tudor wrote:
> Here's what they're threatening:
> https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487?hl=en
>
> This article explains what's going on, I believe:
> http://www.theawl.com/2013/12/the-new-spammer-panic
>
> But yep, what Whealie said.
>

Thanks Ben, for these links. I'm going to try really hard and
concentrate and try to understand this. I love the idea of the spammers
repenting their misdeeds & backtracking. Such fun. I haven't got my head
round why the Southport Reporter is so anxious that sites that archive
news will shut down. Why is being disavowed lethal to your existence?

Since you're so good at finding ways to explain things, can you shed
light on the app data mining business. Does Angry Birds, and other apps,
really get permission to take your contacts and send them to a third
party? Is that using the general meaning of contacts, ie my Aunty Doris
and all the other people in my phone's address book? I just can't
believe that is permitted. Or does it mean contacts you've made within
the game or something?

All links to helpful & understandable articles appreciated.

Cheers
PJ

(PS I had an exchange with moneysupermarket.com last year, who were
initially quite persistent that I removed a link. But when I got into
dialogue with them, they changed their minds - said the link was fine.
Very odd.)

[Chris Wheal]

Having an app of my own I may have some input on the app world.

If you look at the permissions required for my app to work - few people do but those who do get paranoid (as it turns out rightly) - it appears to be seeking all this information and the ability to share your contacts or send your details elsewhere. My app does not do this. The problem is the permissions come in batches so a wide variety of things are grouped together.

My app is a diary and reminder system so if you say you want to be reminded to get your MOT, you can ask to be reminded a day in advance, seven days, 14 days and so on. It can also, if you wish, stick this reminder in your calendar. At any point you can turn off the access to your calendar.

Both Google and Apple groups the calendar and contacts together so the app seeks permission to access your contacts, even though it currently has no use for them and does not access them. Now, the upgrade I am sitting here testing, will have a share function so you can email, text, Facebook and tweet to say you are using the app and recommend it. Obviously, in order to send an email or SMS it will need access to your contacts. This will be the first time it has needed that access but the permissions will not change because they were all encompassing anyway.

My app, for entirely innocent and genuine reasons will access your photos (so you can put a photo of your motorbike in the app), your contacts, your email, your calendar and - in the next upgrade too - your location data (so fuel prices can be recorded by location).

I can now see that it would take very little to change the app to pass on your contacts, photos, location data, calendar etc without you knowing. My app doesn't, and I assume that would be illegal (even though, in theory, you have given my app permission to access that information). It’s like I don’t shoplift when I go into shops, even though I could and often it would be very easy - just because the a shop has given me access to its products does not mean I can just take them.

Chris Wheal
t: +44 20 8694 9412
m: +44 7831 268261

[PJ White]

On 06/02/2014 11:13, Chris Wheal wrote:
> I can now see that it would take very little to change the app to pass on your contacts, photos, location data, calendar etc without you knowing. My app doesn't, and I assume that would be illegal

Thanks Chris. I stopped reading the permissions when I realised I
couldn't understand them. The red cross first aid app, entirely benign
afaik, had some permissions that I raised my eyebrows at. But the
developer explained them - it needs the ability to make phone calls
because there's a function that you can call emergency services
(something like that, it was a while ago). So unless you have a deep
understanding of how things work, I don't see how knowing the
permissions gets you very far.

What I'd like to know is what companies are actually doing with their
permissions. The WSJ blog from a few years ago has a handy table, which
seems to show that Angry Birds sends contacts to third parties. And
phone ID, username and password.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk-mobile/

I can scarcely believe this.

It's not so much sleepwalking into a surveillance society as sprinting
towards it as fast as we can and paying for the pleasure....

PJ

[Ben Tudor]

Interesting stuff, Chris - I didn't realise permissions were batched like that. Not good practice from Apple or Google.

The Southport Reporter may have got the wrong end of the stick. Disavowing links, which the spammer, sorry, SEO consultant, threatened, doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the newspaper. After all, they are probably (hopefully) generating lots of original content. But I'm extrapolating here.

I think your point , PJ, is an interesting one: 

"Does Angry Birds, and other apps, really get permission to take your contacts and send them to a third party? Is that using the general meaning of contacts, ie my Aunty Doris and all the other people in my phone's address book? I just can't believe that is permitted."

The thing is, it is permitted - by the user, when they give permission for the app to do it. As someone pointed out recently, we might not be too keen to give the NSA access to all our data, but millions of people happily hand it over so they can throw cartoon animals at other cartoon animals.

Of course, those security organisations have got wise to this:http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523971/how-app-developers-leave-the-door-open-to-nsa-surveillance/

Ben

[Ben Tudor]

A slight modification of Humbert Wolfe's quote about the British press to discuss what consumers will do might be called for:

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.

--
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to FleetStreet-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FleetStreet
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FleetStreet" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fleetstreet+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Chris Wheal]

It is weird that Angry Birds needs to send anything to anybody, given that it makes its money from either ads or people buying it. 

My app does send a lot of data to my server because I need it. In order to give your the user the average fuel consumption for your vehicle I need all users’ fuel consumption data. So all the users send me their personal fuel consumption data and, in return, I send them the average for their bike. Most people are happy with that exchange.

If my business model proves successful I will actually start “paying” my users for their data (not in cash but with other fee services or discounts etc). I will also do surveys and offer names-out-of-the-hat prizes (big prizes - say a £10,000 motorbike).

It’s actually the perfect business model for a cooperative - all the users collectively own the business. Except the bloke with his house mortgaged to the hilt is me and I have not, so far, been swamped with fellow bikers wanting to be part of the collective debt.

Chris Wheal
t: +44 20 8694 9412
m: +44 7831 268261