[griffman]

"If one day you don't have control over your own television and can't change the channels on the device in your own home, will that merely "irk" you as well, or would you not say a larger issue is at play -- namely that of your right to control the devices you own in your own home and to control what information about you is made available to corporations?"
This is (obviously) quite off topic, so I'll keep this short: I completely agree with you. However, Richard Stallman is beyond even that position, and that's just too radical for me. Further discussion on this topic, though, should really move to alt.politics or some other suitable site /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
-rob.

[jmincey]

"This is (obviously) quite off topic..."
I guess that all depends on how we define the topic. If we define the topic as the unapproved corporate use of our personal appliances without disclosure to the appliance owner, and if we regard Apple's MiniStore and widget behavior as but two examples of that, then it's not really off topic. But if this thread should be only about the technical aspects of the widget issue, a sort of Mac OS X Hints kind of thing, then you are right that I have strayed off topic, in which case I'm sorry about that.

[d00d]

" I don't object to not being notified when a widget uses the network for part of its function. For example, if I call up a weather widget, it goes without saying that it must pull weather data from a source other than my own local computer. Communication is implicit in its function. The same goes for news headline widgets and many others."
That's not really the differentiating characteristic either. Take the iTunes Mini Store debacle. When I saw it, the first thing I thought was that communication was implicit in its use. If I didn't like it, I turned it off. And yet, that was a huge issue, particularly for you.
"What we are talking about here is not something intrinsic to the function of widgets or any other program. It's an "external" function Apple has chosen to impose in which it updates widgets without the knowledge of the user."
Many times, screen-scraping is what these widgets do and updating is required for maintaining proper operation, so I would consider a core part of it. Also, got any links that say the widgets are updated without user notification or prompting?

[griffman]

"But if this thread should be only about the technical aspects of the widget issue, a sort of Mac OS X Hints kind of thing, then you are right that I have strayed off topic, in which case I'm sorry about that."
At some level, everything's on topic /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif. But the problem is a progression such as this:
OS X phones home -> usage of system without my approval -> other things are doing that too -> it's only getting worse -> it's because laws don't represent the people's will -> we need to change the system -> it's time for a revolution! -> please respond if you're interested in joing the People for the Freedom of Technology party /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
It's entirely possible to reach the final argument from the first, with each post basically being "sort of" on topic to the original conversation. But generally speaking, the discussions here should focus on the technical issues at hand, and not necessarily the higher-level social issues related to those issues -- otherwise, every thread could theoretically turn into a discourse on the current trends in society. And while that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's definitely not something that's part of Macworld's charter /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
-rob.

[RASTERMAN]

I think it's time for Jeff to start a podcast. Heck, why not have a widget built to keep us up-to-date on his frequent and seemingly tireless commentary.
"Welcome all to the jmincey show!"
I'm just teasing you Jeff, so please don't get all bent out of shape by my weak attempt at humor.
I too insist on full disclosure, and want to control to the degree possible all of my "appliances."
Having waited to do the update until this weekend, I will still go ahead and do it. At least now I'm marginally informed of what is happening in the background, even though it was not Apple that disclosed it.
---RASTER

[lahgitana]

Thank you for the fix. I'm new to programming and need help. Got into Terminal OK and I'm an admin on the computer. Keep getting error msg "No such directory...."
Anybody tell me, step by step, how to do this right?

[jmincey]

Did you copy and paste this command directly into the Terminal or did you type it manually? If the latter, you might double-check for typos. If the former, then I have to ask what version of OS X you are running. Please confirm that. It needs to be 10.4.7.

[MoeS]

"phone-home", "hijack", "1984ishness"?
This is the problem with modern "journalism". There is absolutely no penalty for a "journalist" not getting their facts straight - and actually if you play your cards right you can increase your web clicks by posting completely meaningless articles. This article is nothing more than the rantings of an ignorant hot-head. What happened to non-bias reporting of the facts?
The fact is: This widget does not transmit personal information about you or your location. It does not seek to identify you or your location. It is not "phoning-home" like Microsoft or Adobe software does.
Hijack? Take a look at your activity monitor if you really want to see some "hijacking". The term is a bit alarmist don't you think?
1984ishness? This from a Macworld editor.
Your information was wrong. Your linking this "incident" to the ministore shows how little you knew about the ministore feature. Stick to the facts next time, I realize that facts aren't as intriguing, but it's what you signed up to do right? As a reporter?

[Nobody]

" Apple's Dashboard Advisory verification software was designed as a security feature, a company representative said. "Apple takes protecting user privacy very seriously. The Dashboard Advisory feature is a security tool that ensures that the correct version of a widget has been downloaded from a third-party site and no personal information is transmitted back to Apple," the company said in a statement.
Dashboard Advisory looks at just widgets, not the rest of the operating system. Widgets available on Apple's Downloads page are actually hosted by the companies that developed the widgets, not Apple. The verification feature is designed to ensure that the widget advertised on Apple's Download page is the same widget that gets installed on a Mac, or to prevent someone from spoofing a link to trick a user into downloading a different program.
A Mac with the latest version of Mac OS, version 10.4.7, sends a HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) GET command to Apple's servers to verify that the widget is authentic, the company representative said. There is no way to turn off the transmission, which takes place about every eight hours, and the user is not prompted before the transmission is made."
So what is the fuss? Is this not unlike software updates notifications?
Want real security?Disconnect. Want paranoia? Listen to half the guys on this forum. Do you think that this website is not tracking you and everything you do? Check your logs. Otherwise, how would they know how "anonymous users are browsing this forum" vs registered users at any given momemt?

[jmincey]

Do you mean to suggest that where widgets and OS X 10.4.7 are concerned, there is no OS-initiated covert, user-unauthorized network activity?
[Edited by Chris to remove snark.]
Very well, Chris, then let me rephrase: MoeS, in addition to informing us as to what the issue is not and all the misinformation which surrounds it, would you take the next step please and inform us as to what exactly is taking place then?

[griffman]

The fuss is a result of the incidents from many companies in the past, including the Mini Store incident, where data is transmitted to the company, through a third party. Personally, I think it's a good thing, and as noted in my editorial (note for the clueless - editorial = my opinion, not a news story) the only things I think Apple did wrong were not giving us control, and not providing a full disclosure on what was going on.
And nobody has yet answered my question: why are widget updates more important than system software updates, which are completely optional??
-rob.

[jmincey]

"So what is the fuss? Is this not unlike software updates notifications?"
It's nothing like Software Update because it offers no disclosure nor an opportunity by the user to (1) turn it off, (2) enable it on an automatic basis, or (3) run it manually.
I have no objection to measures which increase widget security and validation; the issue here is about disclosure to the user and placing control in the hands of the party who owns the computer. If this behaved like Software Update, there would be no controversy and no issue.

[lahgitana]

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I did copy and paste the whole string. Yes on 10.4.7.

[griffman]

Can you please try it again, and then copy and paste both the input and the output from Terminal here?
-rob.