More Than 25% of Android Apps Know Too Much About You 277
CowboyRobot writes "A pair of reports by Juniper and Bit9 confirm the suspicion that many apps are spying on users. '26 percent of Android apps in Google Play can access personal data, such as contacts and email, and 42 percent, GPS location data... 31 percent of the apps access phone calls or phone numbers, and 9 percent employ permissions that could cost the user money, such as incurring premium SMS text message charges... nearly 7 percent of free apps can access address books, 2.6 percent, can send text messages without the user knowing, 6.4 percent can make calls, and 5.5 percent have access to the device's camera.' The main issue seems to be with poor development practices. Only in a minority of cases is there malicious intent. The Juniper report and the Bit9 report are both available online."
If only! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If only! (Score:5, Insightful)
If only there were some way to know what permissions the app really needed to do its job!
If only you didn't have to slog through 15 different flashlight apps before you find one that doesn't want access to your address book!
Re:If only! (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't. Torch, Done.
What Google should do is let me search for apps by permissions. I also wish they would let me never see a freemium app again. I have zero interest in them.
Re:If only! (Score:5, Interesting)
permissions are vague. I can't know what the hell they plan to do!
what I'd want is a watcher that gives pop-ups or some notification and STOPS THE APP until I let it thru. very very fine grained permit/deny and also a lot of all info that is captured and sent.
until the apps are more transparent (they are anything but, now!) I refuse to run most android 'store' apps or anything else.
the whole market is fucked up; the protection model is bullshit and there's no audit ability for users to feel confident that this or that app is not doing funny shit behind the owner's back.
the permissions model is quite stupid by design. another google design failure, designed by engineers and not designed FOR users who are non-tech and simply want to know what the app is DOING.
there also isn't a standard default firewall on unrooted android. again, I have no trust in android when I have to go around it and root it just to have a firewall and user filters or ACL's.
the whole model needs a serious rewrite. not saying the apple model is any better, but android is quite immature in how it DOES NOT protect the user or give them any real info to go on. the only thing you have now is 'trust us' and, well, I just don't!
vista annoyed users with the popups but I do think that some level of that is needed, here. WHEN an app tries to do things that fit some trigger, show me! show me what and when and where. keep logs of it. let me query the logs and study how good or bad this app is. let me run it in 'hobble mode' so that it, by default, does not get access to anything. let me trust it over time and relax restrictions as it gets my trust.
the whole model is all wrong. sorry, but it seems no one was thinking of the users, here. and users are getting screwed by not having true visibility into the (often) evils that 'flashlight apps' do.
Re: (Score:2)
How are they vague? They have plain english descriptions.
Torch:
Hardware controls: Take pictures and videos
System Tools: prevent phone from sleeping.
If you can't read plain english you don't need a smartphone. A user who can't do that will just OK anything it ever asks for watcher or not.
Why do you need a firewall if you don't leave ports open willy nilly?
Re:If only! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is vague.
full Internet access: Allows the app to create network sockets.
The main question I have is Why does it need internet access? And that is not answered.
Re: (Score:2)
Torch does not.
What application are you talking about?
A free one probably wants to display adds, I suggest you buck up and spend $1 on the version that does not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If only! (Score:5, Informative)
LBE Privacy Guard. Still free, and still allows denial of permissions to apps on a rooted phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That ability already exists with apps and in some roms.
Adding it to AOSP would be neat though.
Re: (Score:3)
I know I'm going into dangerous territory here by praising Facebook for their security (ssshhhhh!!!!) but when you add 'apps' to facebook, it will tell you what it is wanting to access but facebook gives you the ability to deny access to th
Re: (Score:2)
The very first release of Android did this, it's been in Android all along.
Probably because it's simpler all round to just assume that if the app is running it has permission. Fewer moving parts. It's not in the user's best interests
Re: (Score:3)
Given Android will now ... tell you what permissions the app will access, why isn't there the ability to just configure android to refuse to pass those details on to the app at the OS level?
This is a feature of Cyanogenmod. You can revoke permissions in a granular fashion; There's no knowing how it will affect the app's performance, and you do so at your own risk obviously. For all others, there's LBE Privacy Guard which will prevent access to contacts, messages, location, and data services on a per-app basis.
Re: (Score:2)
If only you were able to selectively revoke permissions you thought an application didn't need!
I mean, when I install an app, I'd like to be shown a list of permissions it wants, just as I am now, and then I'd like to go through that list and toggle some off... and if the app can still run without those things, it should install anyway (and not do the things I've told it not to do). Surely that ain't rocket science!
Force close (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like shitty application design.
Try and catch a really neat you should check them out. How would your crap application handle a device that totally lacks whatever you are trying to access?
Permissions related to hardware features (Score:3)
How would your crap application handle a device that totally lacks whatever you are trying to access?
It would rely on having been blocked from installing. Android apps can state that a permission is required or that a permission is required unless the hardware doesn't support it. If a permission is required and the hardware doesn't support it, Android blocks it from installing. I have seen this with newer versions of the ZXing Barcode Scanner on my Archos 43 Internet Tablet, which requires the "landscape" permission that Archos mistakenly left out of its AOSP build. The same happened when I tried to instal
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is the point of a "Flashlight App' anyway?
Do you really need a program to turn your $250 tablet into a $10 flashlight?
Mote - I am a flashlight-o-holic since I work nights
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want to carry two devices?
My GN is always in my pocket, why not use it as a flashlight?
Re:If only! (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree. It's a problem with humanity. Android does a good job of warning you that your flashlight app will send your contact list to the universe.
Re: (Score:3)
the platform is perfectly secure you simply granted access to things you shouldn't it like saying that prisons are incapable of keeping felons from escaping, after you handed each prisoner a master key and told the wardens to let them leave.
the problem lies with the developers for demanding to many permissions and the user for granting them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If only! (Score:5, Informative)
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
If a GPS application wants access to my contacts and location I can let it.. but if it asks for access to my photos and bluetooth sharing I can disallow it.
It's quite nice, actually.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
Re:If only! (Score:5, Informative)
There are aftermarket ROMs that do that. CM is one.
There are tools that actually do one better, they let you give apps fake data. Let that stupid game have a GPS, one that shows you out in the Atlantic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That sucks, I run CM7 on my D1. I am currently running stock on my GN. So I was not aware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If a charge comes up, I reference that conversation and it's their problem. No charge has come up.
that's good that it has not come up, because if you think referencing previous conversation with a support rep is going to help, i have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything it punishes developers who want to "kitchen sink" their permissions and then get bit by users who refuse to install their app because the permissions look sketchy. I (and i suspect most other informed Android users) look at permissions before deciding to buy/install, and that is a big factor. The bonus of this is that I avoid installing apps that are almost certainly a waste of space anyway. How many shitty flashlight apps does one really *need*?
Re:If only! (Score:4, Informative)
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
because (sensibly) by default apps have no such permission. I get asked if I want to allow the action the very first time.
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things? I don't build my own computers. I don't jailbreak my iDevices.. I don't tinker with my car.. I don't mod my fridge. If I have to immediately start hacking my device in order to get the security I want then it's not really much good to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine don't do those things, but then you are probably on the wrong website. You can stay, but don't be surprised when people tend to think those things are the norm. For many here they are.
Asking on behalf of family members (Score:2)
Fine don't do those things, but then you are probably on the wrong website.
As CronoCloud has repeatedly told me, Slashdot users tend to be extreme edge cases. People who ask questions as if they are on the wrong web site might be asking on behalf of family members or co-workers who are clearly outside Slashdot's core demographic.
Re: (Score:3)
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things? I don't build my own computers. I don't jailbreak my iDevices.. I don't tinker with my car.. I don't mod my fridge. If I have to immediately start hacking my device in order to get the security I want then it's not really much good to me.
You are completely missing the point. If you are holding an android device in your hand then, much like an iPhone, it is already secure. If you choose to install a shitty app, that's on *you* and just because the OS or the ghost of Steve Jobs doesn't step in and smack your hand, that doesn't mean the only way to maintain security is to "immediately start hacking". Security first, shitty flashlight apps second. That should be the workflow. If it's too much to grasp, then sure stick with your iPhone.
That is how it behaves, sort of (Score:3)
Okay, just making sure I understand what you're saying - you install an app on iOS, but it's totally dead in the water (i.e., no permissions to actually do anything) until the user actually engages the app for the first time, at which point it goes through the things it wants to do point-by-point, giving the user the option to not allow certain permissions, while allowing others?
You don't really understand it, but you are on the right track.
The application when you start it has no ability to access protecte
Re:If only! (Score:5, Interesting)
If only there were some way for me to tell which permissions an app will use when I install it!
I've created one Hello World app, just to see how it works. I've followed directions, didn't do anything to snoop around. The result is that it needs Phone ID somehow. I suspect that many app programmers do nothing to snoop around, but automatically request more permissions than actually needed, probably because the programming IDE does this automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
I've created one Hello World app, just to see how it works. I've followed directions, didn't do anything to snoop around. The result is that it needs Phone ID somehow. I suspect that many app programmers do nothing to snoop around, but automatically request more permissions than actually needed, probably because the programming IDE does this automatically.
Can you not just use the ANDROID_ID which doesn't require any permissions?
Re: (Score:2)
I've created one Hello World app, just to see how it works. I've followed directions, didn't do anything to snoop around. The result is that it needs Phone ID somehow. I suspect that many app programmers do nothing to snoop around, but automatically request more permissions than actually needed, probably because the programming IDE does this automatically.
Can you not just use the ANDROID_ID which doesn't require any permissions?
Yes! Well to be honest I wouldn't know - but I suppose you do. This app does nothing but display the text Hello World. So it doesn't need any permissions. Still the app requests them. I'm an unexperienced android app developer, don't know this alternative, and I suppose I'm not the only one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you may have done it wrong (or whatever example you followed was wrong). The default IDE (Eclipse with the ADK plugin) does not generate permissions into the manifest. They all go in manually. If your Hello, World required extra permissions then they were most likely added by accident or you are using some uncommon IDE/plugin.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the target SDK level? Older levels were always given access to phone ID, but in newer levels, it had to be specifically requested. For backwards compatibility, older apps targeted to the older levels would request that permission. Solution would be to have a newer target level, but not necessarily change the minSDK level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If only! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually a lot of decent apps have a why in the description of the app.
If it does not seem like it should need it and they fail to explain it don't install it.
Still better than on the PC, where any application can read any of your files.
Re: (Score:2)
Still better than on the PC, where any application can read any of your files.
Maybe you should blame it on your OS.
Re: (Score:2)
What OS are you using?
Short of using SELINUX or apparmor, which I do use this is the normal behavior. Windows will allow any application running as a user to access that users data, OSX is the same.
Android permission rationales (Score:2)
You get shown the permissions right before you download an app, but you don't ever get told why an application needs these permissions.
Ideally an application's description would contain something like a privacy policy that describes what it does with each permission. For example:
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some way to selectively allow or deny permissions to an app instead of the all-or-nothing approach currently employed.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some way to selectively allow or deny permissions to an app instead of the all-or-nothing approach currently employed on a non-rooted phone.
FTFY. If your phone is rooted, use Permissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives every app root?
Is there even a common android su that does not ask the user?
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that Android has been making it progressively harder? In ICS, the big fat "INSTALL" button is located at the top (instead of the bottom) so users can quickly tap Install, Install and never see the permission list.
Plus, a lot of permissions get grouped under "Other permissions" so you have to tap that in order tlo see the full permission list, so at best you see a few major permissions, and the rest
Privacy apps - LBE (Score:5, Informative)
I've installed LBE Privacy control and it blocks unnecessary permissions for many apps. Why does a keyboard need internet access? The only thing I'm concerned about... What does LBE know, and what does it share?
Re: (Score:2)
The keyboard might be pulling down certain language dictionaries,hence the need for Internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
The developer should say that in the description then.
You should still be suspicious since he could just lie. If it needs new dictionaries it should get them via an application update.
Language packs as applications (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes 45MB! of my 32GB of storage. How ever will we manage. It would take seconds to download that information over LTE, seconds!
Or maybe market intents and separate play market apps for each dictionary would work just fine.
Partitioned storage (Score:2)
Oh noes 45MB! of my 32GB of storage.
Phones running Android 2.x (FroYo or Gingerbread) are likely to be partitioned with 512 MB for apps and the rest for SD card. Only by 4.x (Ice Cream Sandwich) did Android phones switch to MTP for PC file transfers so that they don't need a separate partition that can be unmounted while the phone is connected to the PC.
It would take seconds to download that information over LTE, seconds!
LTE is for burst transfers, not for sustained transfers. Assuming a cap of 5 GB per month, a 45 MB download takes up about 6 hours of your cap (45 / 5000 * 30 * 24 = 6.48).
Re: (Score:2)
If you are running 2.x I feel for you. That device should be replaced by now.
LTE is for all the time, that is why I have an unlimited plan. Even if not 45MB is still not enough to worry about. On my Wifi it would take even less time than over the LTE.
Some carriers are still selling 2.x phones (Score:2)
If you are running 2.x I feel for you. That device should be replaced by now.
Some U.S. carriers are still selling 2.x phones, especially carriers that operate on models other than subsidy. See for example Intercept [virginmobileusa.com], Chaser [virginmobileusa.com], Optimus Slider [virginmobileusa.com], Optimus Elite [virginmobileusa.com], and Triumph [virginmobileusa.com].
LTE is for all the time, that is why I have an unlimited plan.
Provided you happen to live in one of the major cities that has unlimited LTE.
On my Wifi it would take even less time than over the LTE.
Which may mean a trip to the restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
What 100MB max? Oh noes!
Or here in good design land we keep those dictionaries in separate apps and use the google market to get them.
Rationale for Internet permission on IME (Score:2)
Why does a keyboard need internet access?
An input method might need Internet access to download autocorrection dictionaries for multiple languages, or to download messages from sponsors to keep the application free for you to use.
Re: (Score:2)
So then install CyanogenMod. It has this sort of functionality by default.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally swear by LBE Privacy Guard, as I use it on all my Android devices.
Wearing my tinfoil hat, I do have a concern about a free product from China that requires root and handles all the vital security info on a device.
Same here! I really like this app. I've tried several of these privacy apps, and most are a hassle to work with. This one is easy and user friendly. I trust it in limiting other apps, and I see many notifications in the status bar about apps trying to get certain info. But do they have a hidden agenda somehow? Then again, what will it bring them, needing root access, and then a user who knows what to do. It's not that hundreds of millions of people will install this app, like the Facebook app. But if they w
Re: (Score:2)
After it asks for su. How about you just don't approve it?
Or maybe leave root off unless you need it at that moment.
Only If you Allow Them? (Score:2)
I have an S3 and downloaded a few apps. Before installation you're told what permissions the app wants on your device.
E.g. the Facebook app seems to want every permission it can get it's grubby hands on thus I've chosen not to install it.
Unless app developers are using workarounds.
Funnily enough it is no surprise that many of the "free" apps seem to want the most permissions.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an S3 and downloaded a few apps. Before installation you're told what permissions the app wants on your device.
E.g. the Facebook app seems to want every permission it can get it's grubby hands on thus I've chosen not to install it.
Unless app developers are using workarounds.
Funnily enough it is no surprise that many of the "free" apps seem to want the most permissions.
For facebook I use Firefox. Works great although maybe a bit less fluent, and no worries that it will upload my contact list.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough it is no surprise that many of the "free" apps seem to want the most permissions.
I never was surprised by that because ad-financed apps need the most dangerous permission: unlimited internet access.
Fine grained options (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if he wants to know what his apps are doing.
iPhone has no mechanism for that at all.
Underpowered client device (Score:2)
I encountered an app that would do statistics on a picture. Said app actually uploaded the picture to a website, then pulled values back from that instead of calculating from the app itself.
An iPhone 3GS or iPod touch 4 might not have enough memory to complete the calculation or enough CPU power to complete the calculation in a reasonable time. It's for the same reason that Siri uploads compressed audio instead of attempting speech to text directly on the device.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you want is an iPhone right?
Apps the send details about you include Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Instagram and LinkedIn heard of any of these!
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is, if an iPhone does that, there is nothing you can do, since it might be happening behind your back.
If you see your flashlight app uses the internet or GPS, you can skip it.
Re: (Score:3)
What we need is name and shame (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a website listing apps and what persmissions they require vs use.
Developers will start paying attention when their apps are publicly shamed.
Lets Mention Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Lets have a little balance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/iphone-privacy-app-path-facebook-twitter-apple_n_1279497.html?ref=mostpopular [huffingtonpost.com]
Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Instagram all send email addresses and phone numbers to their local servers.
The whole thing blew up and ended up with US congressmen sending letters to Tim Cook. This was feburary this year
"This incident raises 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."
Butterfield and Waxman then quote parts of Apple’s iOS developer website which states that Apple provides a comprehensive collection of tools and frameworks for storing, accessing and sharing data. It is then questioned whether Apple requires apps to request user permission before transmitting data about a user."
Re:Lets Mention Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
All of these companies have both official iOS apps and official Android apps, and the ones I've used on Android have definitely accessed my contacts. In fact, Facebook made headlines by fucking up the email addresses in the address books of Android users recently.
But yes, let's have a little balance by directing the blame for the actions of these particular companies solely at Apple.
I wish for optional capabilities (Score:2)
I wish I could use "optional" permissions. If the user doesn't want to give me access to something, that's fine. But if you want to integrate a whiz-bang feature that requires SMS, you either scare off people or have to make a separate app.
Re: (Score:2)
Some ROMs allow users to disable certain permissions.
I would love to see that in AOSP. If an app needs advertising to survive and the user blocks networking it can check for that and just refuse to run until the user enables it. That is the best of both worlds, you can get the permissions you need and I can decide if you really need them.
Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
That study is irrelevant. Most of those apps don't know that because they need to, but because they are free and the averts do.
Do the same study on payed apps. For example, GPS location access is not present on any of the games I bought so far.
I just got an android and it's plain scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way things are setup on stock android is a nightmare. The supposed "Walled Garden" doesn't even exist. Android doesn't have malware/viruses because "legit" apps can walk right in and do whatever they want. Want to steal all your users contacts and use them for spam? There's a built-in API for that.
I was trying to download a widget for screen brightness and 99% of the free ones wanted internet access permissions. It was just absolutely atrocious.
The only redeeming feature is how easy it is to root and fix.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I will be criticized for that, but if you want one, you can write one! It is not hard to make a widget for android. Of course, there might already be an OSS app to do that. Look in the list of fdroid.
Re: (Score:2)
Like usual, everything is better when it's open source [f-droid.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just not install any applications that ask for those permissions is that so hard?
99% of the brightness widgets want internet access? Sounds like you just found a new winning idea. Make one that does not.
A name for this (Score:2)
I really like the name that phk (of FreeBSD and Varnish fame) came up with for permissions required for apps like that: chernobyl bits.
It has a really nice ominous and "this is wrong and you shouldn't do it" ring to it.
Versus desktops? (Score:3)
The larger point is that desktop programs could have been doing for years what people are worried about with tablet and phone applications.
That said, it still creeps me out to see a solitaire game needing access to my address book. Maybe this is a case of "out of sight, out of mind."
Re: (Score:2)
I typically run untrusted applications on my machine under a different user account (firefox is one of them) which can not access anything in from my "real" user account. It is easy to set up!
Possible vs. easy (Score:2)
I'm going to start carrying 2 phones (Score:4, Interesting)
one that is the smartphone (portable computer) and that will not have sms, cell service, address book, etc. rooted and firewalled and monitored.
2nd phone would be a dumb phone that has no networking at all in it, simply just to send and receive voice calls.
until there is a hard boundary (enforced, like a true barrier) between the soft apps and things that can cost you money (dialing out, stealing your contact list or local data), it just does not seem worth it to bundle all your stuff into one box.
sure, its convenient but the trust model is not good enough.
more and more, I just leave the smartphone home and use it as a wifi only device. at least I know that no sms BS is coming thru and no outgoing calls or wan connects could ever happen that would be costly or info-leaking.
seriously, I'm demotivated to invest more of my personal info on a box that I have less and less control over.
Re: (Score:2)
DroidWall (Score:5, Informative)
Whose hands is my data? (Score:3)
On the other hand, I'm helpless against a big corp. I don't think there's any difference, since it includes profit and big corps can make more money out of it, in a way that big or small company can do with my personal data. Major problem is I can't fight with a big corp. I won't be able to have a energy and money to protect myself. They will do whatever they could do and I would be helpless.
It's important to educate people about the importance of their privacy, so there will be a common uprising against the big corps in case they do evil. People ignorantly trust big companies. They will accept any kind of pop-up, or warning you'd put and install their applications. Though they have no idea what could they do and what kind of power they have with these data after they get a big harm. There must be thousands of families or lifes ruined because of irresponsibility of privacy protection of facebook or google. Even I personally know couple of people affected by those. But I haven't heard any case these companies paid for their wrongdoings.
Apps need permissions to work (Score:3)
I've been developing a few Android apps and they almost all require some type of "unsafe" permissions to run...except one (a small puzzler game).
Similarly, many apps need internet permissions. You can still look at what the app does, and try to determine if it really needs all the permissions it is asking. But since the problem lies in how do the app creators use those permissions beyond their declared "privacy policy", the only reasonable solution I see, is to install a monitoring app for network access, as suggested by some posters...provided the app itself isn't spying on you...
At least Android has choices (Score:3)
Many many apps want far too many permissions. But if you firewall the app it doesn't really matter what it knows, it won't be talking to the Internet.
What I'd really like to see in Android is apps running in a sandbox and you being able to deny specific permissions for any app (with the caveat that may break the app, but so be it.)
With iOS all the permissions and spying is behind the scenes so as not to confuse or concern the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Each one has a nice explanation next to it, like so:
Hardware Controls: Take pictures and Videos
System Tools: prevent phone from sleeping.
If you cannot be bothered to read the simple english explanations you are beyond all help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You bitch that this is not granular enough and that more granularity would be too hard. So you are pretty much fucked. No amount of design can fix your disinterest.
Welcome to life.
But why does the application need this permission? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think you get access to the flash?
How much clearer can prevent phone from sleeping?
Torch does not need full internet access.
Connection between video and flash (Score:2)
How do you think you get access to the flash?
I didn't immediately see the connection between "take pictures and videos" and use of the flash. Perhaps Android should introduce a finer-grained permission "operate camera flash", and have "take pictures and videos" imply this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that apps' knowledge of you is granted with a nebulous single-screen laundry list and OK button, similar to the click-through EULAs of what seems to be a bygone era.
Yesterday's legal violation is today's privacy violation.
Its nothing like an EULA which is many pages of legal mumbo-jumbo and is resigned to restrict your rights they are even stop class-action lawsuits. That is very different from a small list that identifies the access right of the program. I agree this method is less than perfect , but it is nothing like the draconian EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
for using iPhone apps.
Iphone apps just use you
FTFY! ;-)
Re:Know too much? (Score:5, Funny)
If you've stayed at a hotel, odds are good someone's seen you nude.
In that case, I'm glad I'm ugly as sin, and hope I've blinded them. :)