Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched a new app that will make it easier for people to take action on digital rights issues using their phone. The app allows folks to connect to their action center quickly and easily, using a variety of mobile devices. Sadly, though, they had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them.
Why? "Because we could not agree to the outrageous terms in Apple’s Developer Agreement and Apple’s DRM requirements. As we have been saying for years now, the Developer Agreement is bad for developers and users alike."
The EFF has a petition to try to get Apple to change their abusive and anti-competitive policies. The EFF does a lot of good work defending everyone's rights and freedoms online. Consider signing it. Note: you can sign on any browser, including mobile browsers on an iPhone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday January 08 2015, @10:59PM
One issue that I have is the privacy invasion involved by the use a smartphone. To minimize the risks of such, I chose not to use one.
Now, the interesting question: take action (against invasion of privacy by a smartphone) by using a smartphone? Naahhh: the "senior's mobile phone" is still enough for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @03:19AM
You don't need to put your private information in a smartphone or use applications that share location data. Having wikipedia, openstreetmaps, a compass, and a graphing calculator in my pocket is useful.
wikipedia: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Software#Android [kiwix.org]
openstreetmaps: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=net.osmand.plus [f-droid.org]
compass: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=compass&fdid=com.digitallizard.nicecompass [f-droid.org]
graphing calculator: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=calculator&fdid=com.Bisha.TI89EmuDonation [f-droid.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @04:05AM
So, when I want a map and a compass, for sure I won't need graphing calculator, nor wikipedia. And viceversa.
This is why my GPS navigator is just that: a navigator. And my phone is (as close as it gets this days) a phone only. And if I like to take photos, then damn'd sure I have a proper camera with me (or I don't take photos).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday January 09 2015, @07:09PM
I'm also a guy that like the UNIX principle
So, when you want to calculate something you take an abacus?
Smartphones are just like computers, and what you do with them is up to you. Certainly you also need to invest some time to make sure they only do what you allow them to as well (i.e. jailbreak or root the device), but in the end, you get a multifunctional device in one box, just like with a regular computer. I don't understand this exipnophonophobia.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @09:19PM
I have higher needs from a computer than a smartphone can currently provide.
Besides, when I'm in need for a computer, I'm static enough to open my laptop,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Friday January 09 2015, @11:39PM
I have higher needs from a computer than a smartphone can currently provide.
...posted immediately after:
This is why my GPS navigator is just that: a navigator. And my phone is (as close as it gets this days) a phone only. And if I like to take photos, then damn'd sure I have a proper camera with me.
You're trolling right? You'd rather have three special-purpose computers rather than one general-purpose computer that can handle the special purposes. This sounds incredibly dumb to me, and is the complete antithesis of computer technology. Whether or not your "higher needs" are met by a smartphone, your lower needs -- GPS and camera -- are arguably met pretty well with a general-purpose (smartphone) computer. Trying to quote the Unix principle w/r/t using different special-purpose computing devices is a complete red-herring. After all, Unix is a general-purpose operating system....
A personal example: I play guitar. I need a tuner. Until I bought a smartphone, I had a separate tuning device. Now, I don't need a separate device -- instead I use a dedicated smartphone app to tune. Why on earth would I want to go back to needing a separate device? That means I need to keep track of it, buy batteries for it, and have two devices instead of one. Doesn't sound like there are any gains to using two special-purpose **computers** instead of one.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 10 2015, @01:02PM
No.
Yes.
Whatever floats your boat, mate. At least my GPS navigator doesn't snitch my position, my camera supports different sets of lenses and my phone is oblivious to tracking cookies/ads/etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Sunday January 11 2015, @12:50AM
Pointing out problems w/ modern-day smartphones doesn't defend your position of wanting special-purpose devices instead of general-purpose computers that handle the same functionality.
To propose a different metaphor for you to respond to: I have everyday needs for a) a regular knife blade, and b) a saw knife blade. You're saying you would prefer to carry two knives -- one for each blade -- and that this is superior to my carrying a single knife device that contains both blades. Why would you prefer this?
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 11 2015, @06:57PM
I have nothing to defend. A question of my choice, really, you don't like it, it's your problem.
Nope, the metaphor you propose is invalid. Your choice to carry a smartphone because the camera it has is enough for you doesn't cover my needs for interchangeable lens sets in a custom SLR.
Equally, your "the GPS module in my smartphone is good for me" enters a collision course with "I prefer the GPS navigator that doesn't snitch my position whenever connects to the internet".
If you want to use knife metaphors, you'd better start looking into why chefs needs so many knife types [wikipedia.org] and aren't using a single equivalent of a Swiss army knife with lots of blades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:41PM
in the end, you get a multifunctional device in one box, just like with a regular computer. I don't understand this exipnophonophobia.
I can think of all kinds of situations where a special-purpose device would be preferred to a general- or multi-purpose device. In the original draft of my response, I had an aside about your needing camera functionality that couldn't be supported by a smartphone. That makes plenty of sense and I don't knock it -- I'm not asking you to defend your position (or whatever you want to call it) of why you need a "real" camera. My point is that, **for the vast majority of people** the convenience of having (for example) a camera built into their phone, instead of needing a separate device, is the entire point of putting general-purpose computers into a smartphone form factor.
Whatever your personal views on smartphones are, it cannot be argued against that convenience and portability are significant values to most users. You've made plenty of valid points about your specific use-cases, but not a single one to about the general usefulness of "miniature portable computers". And FYI, the only reason I've stuck with the debate this long is because of your quoting "the Unix principle" as a reason to not use a "miniature portable computer" was one of the most ironic comments I've ever read on this site, and I want to make sure this meme doesn't get spread any further. The Unix principle applies to SOFTWARE DESIGN ONLY.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 11 2015, @10:35PM
I haven't advocate that everybody should follow the rule "use a dumb mobile, a SLR camera and a dedicated GPS navigator instead of a smartphone", I only said I won't use it (and provided the reasons for my choice).
Please check again the thread, I always used "me, my needs, I" and never suggested "you should do it as I do" (sharing my choice and experience is no claim to my representativeness for all the members of the public).
Based on my experience, I found that when/were the quality of the output matters to me (and, again, I don't claim general representativeness), the UNIX principle also applies sometimes in the "hardware" area: use a specialized tool for a job to get the quality I need in a reasonable amount of time.
(BTW, speaking of software... I disagree with your assertion that "smartphones are general purpose computers": every computer that I owned was good enough to support among their purposes the one of "write a program that runs on the very computer used to write it". Maybe you still, theoretically, be able to use a smartphone as a software dev platform, but is not practical. I guess I'd classify a smartphone as a "consumption purposes computer" rather than a "general purpose computer").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Monday January 12 2015, @06:17PM
the UNIX principle also applies sometimes in the "hardware" area
Your example of chef knives is a great example of the necessity and efficacy of special-purpose tools. However, I see the Unix Principle as a foundation for approaching software design specifically. While there are use-cases outside of this domain that support this approach, there are many factors in other domains that are not sufficiently addressed by the Unix principle's single-minded focus on software design -- such as the factors of convenience, portability, and expense that are very important for users of hardware devices.
To name specific factors addressed by the Unix Principle that are specifically applicable to the software domain, I propose:
design simplicity
ease of implementation
ease of debugging
(as you mentioned) modularity (focus on program output or "goal")
Code/Module re-use, particularly for needs not foreseen by the program designer
I always used "me, my needs, I" and never suggested "you should do it as I do"
That's clear to me, but thought it worth responding to in the context of your quotation of the Unix principle and the GP response about "smartphone-phobia".
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday January 09 2015, @10:38AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday January 09 2015, @06:26AM
you move up the terrorist list that all American's are on [as anyone could be a terrorist, just more or less likely than others]. by intentionally avoiding owning and using a smartphone that aids with accessing how much of a terrorist you are, obviously you are much more likely to be a terrorist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday January 08 2015, @11:01PM
Unless the app needs something like accelerometer access, why not just use a website? Isn't the whole point of web standards that we don't need custom apps for every damn thing? What does this app do that going to https://act.eff.org/ [eff.org] can't?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by everdred on Friday January 09 2015, @12:01AM
Frictionless donations via in-app purchases using a saved valid payment method. Access to the device's contact list to easily share content with friends. A continuing icon presence on the user's home screen/apps list. Presence in the app store, which is like a much more cleanly curated web search. (Obvious 'gatekeeper' problems notwithstanding.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @12:13AM
So you're saying the app is better in many ways for EFF, not the phone's owner.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @12:28AM
As it is the case with the great majority of the apps out there (but not all). Does it come as a surprise to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by everdred on Friday January 09 2015, @05:53PM
Yes, better overall for EFF. And also better for the phone's owner, to whatever extent they actually want these features.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Friday January 09 2015, @03:35PM
I came to say the same thing. Before the iPhone even had apps, Steve touted web apps. I still have a couple I keep on my phone that I've had since the original iPhone. I have to imaging anyone involved enough in the fight to know about and support the EFF would be willing to put a web app on their iPhone. It's a "good enough" solution that will work for all intents and purposes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 09 2015, @03:18AM
Perhaps I will submit it to Cydia, for installation on jailbroken phones, or I might to a source-only release.
I'd like people to use the app but I grow weary of Apple's control-freak behavior.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday January 09 2015, @01:13PM
I was a little amazed by this part: "Section 7.3 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, and that Apple can reject an app for any reason, even if it meets all the formal requirements disclosed by Apple. So if you use the SDK and your app is rejected by Apple, you're prohibited from distributing it through competing app stores like Cydia."
I assume sane people will change the name of an app and release it as a different company if they want to release an app that's been rejected from Apple's prison while still wanting to do future business there. It surprises me that some the stuff they have in tehre is legal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 09 2015, @05:10PM
Don't assume that it necessarily is legal unless they've used a court to enforce it.Companies claim all sorts of illegal things in their contracts, and the only penalty seems to be that the courts won't enforce those particular provisions. They don't even look over the rest of the terms and say "And this one and that one are also illegal to enforce.". Much less the problem that different courts may well decide differently, depending on the judges and the lawyers.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pendorbound on Friday January 09 2015, @03:32PM
There’s nothing in the Developer’s agreement that prevents EFF from producing their app for iOS. This is purely EFF on an ideological high horse. They’re *not* going to win this one, so end users suffer because EFF can’t acknowledge that some functional compromises are reasonably acceptable. Doing nothing if you can’t get everything 100% your way is not a reasonable posture in any exchange involving compromise between two parties.
Their petition doesn’t cite chapter & verse in the agreement, but at least the last time I read the thing cover to cover (a year or so ago I think), it didn’t impose a gag order about the agreement itself or on talking about jailbreaking.
It *does* require Apple to approve all updates. This is unequivocally a GoodThing(TM). Compare the prevalence of Android versus iOS malware. Apple’s review process is without a doubt responsible for increased functional security of iOS users.
It also requires all apps to be DRM’d. BFD… If you don’t want the DRM, publish the source, and anyone who wants to can either jailbreak or pay the $99 for developer certs and compile your source for their own devices. The fact that 99% of users can’t modify your app realistically has nothing to do with DRM restrictions and everything to do with the fact that 99% of smart phone users don’t know what a compiler or source code even is. The DRM does not serve as a functional barrier to anyone who has the understanding to make productive use of the source code. Anyone who knows how to compile can either figure out how to jailbreak or (given they own a $700 cellphone) can probably scratch up an extra $99 for developer keys.
Would it be better if there were a highly secured way to side-load apps without paying money to Apple? Maybe.
Does that make any difference to most users? Nope.
Could the majority of users keep their phones secure if there was an easy/free way to side load? Not a chance in hell. If you think they could, please see the WireLuker malware. That was essentially Apple-independent side loading by way of a compromised Enterprise signing key. End result? Tons of infected phones. The vast majority of smart phone users lack the technological expertise to make informed decisions related to running arbitrary executable code on their devices. Leaving that decision to Apple certainly places restrictions on those users. The trade off is for significantly enhanced security. It’s a judgement call whether that tradeoff is in the user’s benefit.
The alternative is Android for those who don’t believe the tradeoff is in their benefit. It’s dishonest of EFF to make this out as a case where Apple is restricting users’ choice. Users have made the choice for the security versus flexibility tradeoff in Apple’s favor. EFF is being pedantic here at best.
See also WireLuker malware: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/05/wirelurker-malware-affecting-macs-ios-devices/ [macrumors.com]
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Friday January 09 2015, @05:16PM
Based on prior comments, it appears that if the application were made for use on the Apple, it could *ONLY* be distributed via the Apple store. If the EFF accepted those terms, I'd be rather reluctant to trust them. Now if someone were to take their software and use it as a basis for an app to be distributed via the Apple store, I'd be rather surprised if they didn't allow that, though it would be better to either do a thorough re-write or to get their approval ahead of time. (As the license holder, they are allowed to issue the software under multiple licenses, and GPL licenses with waivers of various terms have been used before, though I'm thinking of Gnat rather than the EFF.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10 2015, @03:39AM
Your post makes me sad.
Apple, Intel, Sony, etc. adding back-doors and controlling how you use the hardware you supposedly OWN is pathetic and dangerous. No, Apple acting as gatekeeper for apps (and updates) available to users is NOT a good thing. It IS censorship (Apple even refused a comic strip app since it was politically edgy).