Subscribe

Apple steps up in Path-Gate saga

Kathryn McConnachie
By Kathryn McConnachie, Digital Media Editor at ITWeb.
Johannesburg, 16 Feb 2012

Apple's platform, iOS, has been at the centre of the Path-Gate (or Address Book-Gate) controversy that has played out in the past week. The company has finally broken its silence on the issue and announced it will now automatically require user permission before allowing apps to access users' contact lists.

While Path was the first to be outed for uploading users' address books to its servers without asking for permission, or including the practice in its terms of service, numerous other apps have been found to be guilty of the same.

Other apps exposed in the controversy include Instagram, Hipster, Yelp, FourSquare and Twitter (among many others). As a result, Apple also came under fire for allowing app developers too much access to iOS users' information.

AllThingsDigital quotes Apple spokesperson Tom Neumayr: “Any app wishing to access contact data will require explicit user approval in a future software release.”

Prior to releasing its statement, Apple reportedly received an inquiry from the US Congress, which stated the incident raised questions about “whether Apple's iOS app developer policies and practices may fall short when it comes to protecting the information of iPhone users and their contacts”. It also questioned how many iOS apps are able to access user data without users' permission.

Issue of ownership

Jay Garmon, Marketing director of backup/restore service BackUpify, says the Path fiasco was not so much a privacy violation as it was a data ownership breach.

“Nobody using Path, Hipster or almost any other social networking app, could reasonably conclude that those apps couldn't see their address books. Simply using those apps is a giveaway they know who your contacts are, if only by the friend suggestions they make,” says Garmon.

“The mistake Path and Hipster (and who knows how many other companies out there) made is in assuming that because they can see your data, they get to keep your data. This wasn't a privacy violation. This was an ownership violation.

“Path was invited by users to take their address books for a little road trip, but then it snuck into the garage and took it for a spin every night without asking,” says Garmon, adding that what's needed is an understanding that access does not equal ownership.

“Even if I leave the keys to my car out in the open where anyone can grab them, actually using them to open my car without permission is still a crime. Too many companies - and too many users - seem to have forgotten that.”

Share