Posts by pleb 114 publicly visible posts • joined 24 May 2017
Glympse Express has just updated. Glympse lets you text a link to enable the recipient to track your location on a map, for a preset period. So up til now it has asked for Contacts and SMS permission, as well as location obviously. From the app you can click on one from a list of imported contacts and the app will send them a brief sms message together with a URL to track you.
Now however, the update says:
"Changes to how Glympse interacts with Android in order to comply with updated User Data and Permissions policies set forth by Google. When you send a Glympse, your default SMS app is opened and you must manually send the message as opposed to Glympse sending on your behalf."
I have not updated, because I prefer the convenience of fewer click to send the link, and I trust the app.
"Huawei has insisted that it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations in the countries where it operates..."
That's the inescapable problem - they operate in China (obviously), and I believe Chinese law obliges companies to say "yes" when asked act in the Chinese national interest. More may be asked of a company in a position to do more, and building a foreign power's comms network puts them in such a position.
I don't know which is harder to comprehend; that allowing a state ideologically committed to spying against you to build your comms network is a very bad idea, or that 9 months is a trivially cheap price to step back from such an unmitigated disaster.
My Galaxy Note 4 has a setting to "automatically switch between wifi and mobile networks ... to maintain a stable internet connection".
Anyway, once things are 'good enough' then price becomes the decider. Wifi is most definitely more than good enough, so as long as it's cheaper then I'll stick to wifi, no matter how fast the more expensive alternative is.
"OnePlus are not registered in the UK which is why you aren't paying any UK VAT to claim back. If you buy direct you are buying from Europe somewhere."
How does that work? Surely you (should) pay VAT at UK customs if you import privately goods bought overseas (even if via mailorder/internet).
On mobiles.co.uk you can get a Galaxy S9 with 4GB data over 24 months for total cost of £667. That is £115 up front and 24 months at £23. Or SIM-free for £699.
Or SIM-free on Amazon for £739 (pukka UK version, not the various other versions via Hong Kong).
So bundled with 4GB data is cheaper than the sim free handset. Or am I missing something?
You put your finger on it when you recounted the experience setting up a virgin Google account. All defaults are max-slurp. The devil is in the detail - no local phone account to save contacts under, no local gallery app to view photos etc, all the better to funnel all that data to Google the moment you forget to disable whichever sync default.
So I figure it's bad enough having to do business with the devil, but I'm sure not going to sit down to dinner as well. If I must use Android, no way ever is it going to be on Google's own phone. Never.
I can't help noticing that much of what some people fashionably deride as 'bloat' in manufacturer skins is what informs and inspires the next round of new features in Android. Without the constant innovation and differentiation of the manufacturer skins Android would have settled to a far more sedate and self-satisfied pace of change.
My other half just got the Moto G6 Plus. In many ways a nice phone. One thing I noticed, being stock Android, it really pushes you to give all your data to Google. For example there is no local account, you have to store all your contacts against your google account, so unless you are aware and disable google contacts sync then they slurp them automagically. Similar for photos, no local 'gallery' app, only google photos, so if you are not careful then your photos are suddenly corporate property too. Basically all the defaults point your personal data to google.
In the UK Samsung offer a £200 trade in for the Note 4. Even so, I will keep mine. Having just spent a fortnight camping the swappable battery was invaluable. And I actually do make regular use of the IR blaster.The flat screen is a bonus too. All in, I actually prefer my Note 4, despite my gadget lust.
Misuse would imply the reading of your email was not covered by a 'permission'. So on a technical level this is not misuse. But by any common understanding, well, did the users properly understand the permissions? Did anybody really suppose they had understood, or rather is this enterprise predicated on their expected ignorance?
To me they read like you are giving permission for the application itself to read your emails, artificial intelligence, not flesh and blood.
One major difference I see is that, in the main, flaws that have come to light over the years in cars have been defects in the design and build which were present from the start, whereas with phones they are generally vulnerabilities to new exploits which did not pertain when the phone was launched.
1) All this scary noise about security updates for phones; OK, I get the basic idea (my phone *could* be vulnerable to exploit xyz), but I've simply never heard of anyone having it happen to them. Loads of headlines about the possibility, none about the fact.
2) My front door lock *could* be picked - is Yale obligated to upgrade it so it is hardened against the latest developments in lockpicking techniques?
Actually, I could use a primer here. Google apps? What are they, for example? I don't use Chrome or Gmail etc, I actually prefer the Samsung 'crapware' alternatives. Does using the Play app store fall into the category of 'Google apps'? What exactly am I saying goodbye to if I " press cancel on the sign-up"?
Which makes me curious - the author implicitly prefers the slurpy Google apps when he characterises the alternatives as 'crapware', even whilst writing this anti-slurp manifesto. Contradictory?
Unlike a Lambo, bragging rights is not the only factor at stake with storage. I've known two phones die with loads of photos locked inside. One reason why mine are all on the SD card. How much faster than fast enough they get there, I don't care. And yes, it's backed up to a NAS as well, before you jump on that one.
EU? Ironic that they continue to use the English name for the organisation. Surely after we leave they should be denied that privilege and be forced to change the TLD to .UE, or whatever language they can agree upon from within their own pot. Or, erm, does the common concept of Grandfather rights seem relevant here?
"This is surely an impossibility unless JE literally handles all the SMS stuff themselves and bans the restaurant from direct contact with the customer except the delivery itself. "
Far from impossible, but clearly JE want the money but not the work involved.
They just need to look at how Amazon let traders communicate with you by email, but without giving up your email address. A proxy system. No reason why JE could not do the same with your phone number, so that it was never revealed to the restaurant, and JE could audit texts etc.
Can't see any burn in on my Note 4. Even though I am now paranoid, and have changed the browser settings to display full screen, so as to remove the clock etc from permanent display - but no actual sign of burn in from the time display which has been up there for over two years until now.
Maybe if websites could all offer a choice of a black background (as dpreview.com) we would suffer less screen (and retina) burn.
The green shift, yes. But did wonder why I should be looking at my device sideways however... face on seems more natural.
And that is the sad truth. We humans beat machines/AI hands down when it comes to menial 'unskilled' tasks like doing the ironing, folding and putting away clothes, dusting the mantlepiece, etc. Are those the jobs we will be left with once the machines take over all the skilled jobs? Who serves who?
The power imbalance is what annoys me. So Microsoft (or whichever) can include T&Cs that basically state, "we can slurp your data and do what we like with it, you forego any rights to class actions, etc. By continuing to use the software you confirm your consent".
So my choice is to prostitute my legitimate expectations of privacy, or opt out of the norms of participation in modern economy.
So I don't have an "account" with Equifax, nothing I can log in to, so there is no password or mother's maiden name to steal. But obviously Equifux still have loads of data about me to lose/leave on the bus/park bench. But the way they tell it, it is account details etc that were stolen. How does that play for peeps like me with no account?
@Dr Syntax. Thank you. I was not explicit enough, but you expressed it much better. Indeed I was referring to the sharing of cars rather than sharing of journeys. As others point out, we already can share journeys if we wish, driverless changes nothing there. Driverless means we can share the car (sequentially, as another has helpfully clarified) instead of owning it. And as you point out with the Uber example, why would that not add to conjestion?
Ok, I'm maybe being thick, but I don't get how car sharing reduces congestion. Just because everybody has their own personal car parked somewhere (i.e. static), how does that increase traffic congestion? If anything, lots of shared cars transiting to their next assignment can only add to the number of vehicle movements.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
