12-29-2010, 07:54 PM

This was released only 4 1/2 hrs ago. Doesnt seem like much concern around ATM with the blogger but it could go somewhere

Apple facing court case over privacy breaches ~ ABC Australia

Lawyers preparing the cases say Apple presided over an "intrusive tracking scheme" which allowed advertisers to track which applications users downloaded, how long the programs were used, and how often.

12-29-2010, 08:03 PM

Queue the fanboys in 3,2,1...

12-29-2010, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by XJ-linux

Queue the fanboys in 3,2,1...

Those are OUTRAGEOUS accusations ! You just stop minding your own business... there's no need since we have someone doing that for you 24/7. Hey, I love it actually. I've always wanted a "big brother"

12-29-2010, 08:24 PM

This really shouldn't be all that surprising if it's true. I'm not saying this as a way of criticizing Apple (I like Apple) but they are still a corporation like all others.

12-29-2010, 08:58 PM

You know Tattooed .. if it was not for lawyers we wouldn't need lawyers!

12-30-2010, 07:01 AM

This is no different to TV or radio advertisers gathering data on how many people are using a certain product so they can more effectively target people with their advertising. That's one downside for Apple being at the top now. Every man and his dog will try to sue them. Cause bigger companies have more money they can be sued out of.

So either sue Google and every other advertiser on the planet or this is a clear case of someone having a grudge on Apple and picking them out for the court action.

12-30-2010, 07:23 AM

Gotta love the lawyers.

What about the lady that sued Starbucks because she spilled the tea on herself and claimed Starbucks didn't tell her it was hot?

12-30-2010, 11:15 AM

It'll be interesting to see what light is shed on this. I wouldn't imagine Apple could be responsible for what a 3rd party app does unless Apple didn't properly test it.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Apple is a guilty party in all this (I agree with vansmith's comments), but I would be disappointed.

12-30-2010, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by MYmacROX

It'll be interesting to see what light is shed on this. I wouldn't imagine Apple could be responsible for what a 3rd party app does unless Apple didn't properly test it.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Apple is a guilty party in all this (I agree with vansmith's comments), but I would be disappointed.

Yeah, it certainly detracts some from the "value-added" of the closed system model if the moderators of the system are incompetent, apathetic or sympathetic to these things.

12-30-2010, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by schweb

Gotta love the lawyers.

What about the lady that sued Starbucks because she spilled the tea on herself and claimed Starbucks didn't tell her it was hot?

It was McDonalds , and the issue wasn't that the coffee was hot, but it exceeded the legal temperature for a served beverage and she received serious burns. What got McD's in trouble was that the store knew they were breaking the law but wanted their coffee to stay hot longer as a competitive edge (was even advertised as the hottest coffee in town).

(I hate ambulance-chasing lawyers as much as the next guy, but I also hate propagating bad info. There are enough bad lawyer stories without pushing this one around...)

I prefer to bash the rule that says if you have a "dog warning" sign on your property and a burglar breaks in and gets bitten, the property owner is liable because the existence of the sign proves he knew he had a dangerous animal. Never mind that the burglar was breaking the law by being there in the first place...

12-30-2010, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by schweb

Gotta love the lawyers.

What about the lady that sued Starbucks because she spilled the tea on herself and claimed Starbucks didn't tell her it was hot?

Originally Posted by lrd

It was McDonalds , and the issue wasn't that the coffee was hot, but it exceeded the legal temperature for a served beverage and she received serious burns. What got McD's in trouble was that the store knew they were breaking the law but wanted their coffee to stay hot longer as a competitive edge (was even advertised as the hottest coffee in town).

(I hate ambulance-chasing lawyers as much as the next guy, but I also hate propagating bad info. There are enough bad lawyer stories without pushing this one around...)

I prefer to bash the rule that says if you have a "dog warning" sign on your property and a burglar breaks in and gets bitten, the property owner is liable because the existence of the sign proves he knew he had a dangerous animal. Never mind that the burglar was breaking the law by being there in the first place...

Gotta love those signs and labels that cover peoples' behinds. >_>" ::CAUTION HOT COFFEE::

12-30-2010, 12:14 PM

The fireworks that are labeled "for outdoor use only" always crack me up.

12-30-2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by lrd

It was McDonalds , and the issue wasn't that the coffee was hot, but it exceeded the legal temperature for a served beverage and she received serious burns.

Actually no, it's not. The case you're referring to is a case from a very long time ago.

The Starbucks case is very recent. Luckily the judge told the lady basically she was crazy and to get out of his court room.

We need more judges like that.

12-30-2010, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by XJ-linux

The fireworks that are labeled "for outdoor use only" always crack me up.

My favorite is that snow blower manuals often say that you can't use it on the roof.

12-30-2010, 12:59 PM

There's always packages of nuts that have warnings that the package may contain nuts too.