[Macworld]

Post your comments for iPhone references application blacklist, purpose unknown here

[Frumius]

Apple is slipping to the Dark Side, in perception if nothing else. Perception is reality.
I'm bummed, because Apple is my team! I root for them, but I hate to see the silence from them when people cry out (things not working properly), I hate to see the secrecy when people need information (security), I hate to see its reputation slide.
Dang.

[leicaman]

And if Apple didn't offer some way to secure phones from malicious applications sending your location to someone, people would scream bloody murder. Apple can't win with such rumor-mongering.

[Philbert]

Agreed, leica.
"Secrecy" from Apple is nothing new. It's been that way ever since Jobs return over 10 years ago.
I'm getting more than a little bored of the "media" (you too MW), turning every little detail on the way Apple does business into something nefarious. No one other than Apple knows what this bit of code truly represents - and yet, here's MW suggesting that Apple is up to no good.
"the Core Location framework seems an awfully strange place to hide something that could effectively kill applications."
As leicaman suggests - doesn't seem strange at all.
-phil

[hypermark]

Personally, I think that this is Apple's version of Border Control for access to the iPhone Universe.
As I believe that governance is part of the equation, I say hurrah!
In fact, I just posted on this aspect of the topic:
iPhone Universe: Network Borders, Kill Switches and The Core Location
http://thenetworkgar...e-universe.html
Check it out if interested.
Cheers,
Mark

[fletc3her]

I've been amused by the breathless reports of the ability Apple has to remove applications from your iPhone. Their god like control. Etc. And, of course the inevitable spin that people would be going just ape if Microsoft did that.
Of course, Microsoft does have a kill file. It's called the Windows Defender Malicious Software Removal Tool. Windows users who get automatic software updates are running this tool periodically. Of course I'm sure it's doing what it says, removing "malicious" software, but there's no technical reason why it couldn't remove anything on your drive.

[Dan Moren]

Philbert said:

>

Quote

I'm getting more than a little bored of the "media" (you too MW), turning every little detail on the way Apple does business into something nefarious. No one other than Apple knows what this bit of code truly represents - and yet, here's MW suggesting that Apple is up to no good.

"the Core Location framework seems an awfully strange place to hide something that could effectively kill applications."

As leicaman suggests - doesn't seem strange at all.

You very conveniently cut out the first part of the sentence there, which reads "I?ve got to side with Gruber on this one." Both John and I were arguing that it seemed unlikely that Apple would put a way to remove applications in the Core Location framework.

Neither am I suggesting that "Apple is up to no good." The headline itself spells out that the purpose is unknown. I certainly don't cast this anything nefarious. However, the blacklist is there, and it can apparently be used to shut down apps that try to access Core Location, so I think it's justifiable to worry that it could be exploited.

I suggest reading the article closely before jumping to conclusions about what we are or are not saying.

[ComputerJanitor]

Attacking your readers isn't wise. It lowers credibility.
h5. "I suggest reading the article closely before jumping to conclusions about what we are or are not saying."
Apparently you need to write more carefully to maintain journalistic neutrality on the subject. Every person who commented on your article seemed to think it had a negative spin towards Apple. Regardless of your true feelings towards Apple on this subject you came across as very suspicious of Apple intentions.
h5. "preventing a malicious application from having access to your location seems like Apple doing you a solid, but it also seems like there’s the potential for misuse either by Apple or by hackers."

Adding the first "seems like" implies that Apple is indeed up to no good and not simply attempting to prevent malicious access to your location data. The second "seems like" appears to be there just so any claims that you said the blacklist's purpose from Apple is malicious, can be denied... 'but I said "seems like" that means that I didn't say they would, just that it's possible'



To me the real story should've been about an easily exploitable hole in iPhone security and privacy, rather then 'big brother is watching'.

[Dan Moren]

ComputerJanitor said:

Adding the first "seems like" implies that Apple is indeed up to no good and not simply attempting to prevent malicious access to your location data. The second "seems like" appears to be there just so any claims that you said the blacklist's purpose from Apple is malicious, can be denied... 'but I said "seems like" that means that I didn't say they would, just that it's possible'

But in that case, there's no winning. Someone who claims that the bias in the article was pro-Apple could just as easily make the exact opposite argument that you make. Personally, I used "seems like" in both cases because in neither place is there evidence of what the purpose of the blacklist is or that it's been used for anything.

Claiming that two words in one place are of great import whilst simultaneously brushing off meaning from the same two words elsewhere is a little arbitrary.

[ComputerJanitor]

I didn't intend to brush off the meaning of two words. "Seems like" implies that what is being presented is doing so to hide something.

Regardless of semantics the people who commented on your article, took it as negative against Apple and it's intentions. If your readers are inferring a negative message from your article then perhaps the wording of said article led them to that conclusion. I realize that people will read into articles what they want, but in this case none of your commenters disputed the claims of a negative spin.

[Wondercow]

ComputerJanitor said:

I didn't intend to brush off the meaning of two words. "Seems like" implies that what is being presented is doing so to hide something.

That may be your interpretation, but that's not what the words mean nor imply. The government is giving every household $500; this seems like a good idea since we pay far too much in taxes. All it means is "I think that" or "appears to be" (or the dictionary definition: "give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality.")

[doglesby]

ComputerJanitor said:

Attacking your readers isn't wise. It lowers credibility.

Judging from your post, I wouldn't say he was attacking a reader.