Page 1 Page 2
Almost Every Website Reporting the iPhone Tracked Your Location Was Wrong
Do we laugh at the uproar over your phone knowing where you are, when it is just collecting data that your mobile phone company probably already does anyway? Is that not like getting shocked that your land-line house phone knows every time you are in the house whenever you make a phone call, when your call provider is sending you an itemised bill with those calls on every month?
Let's perhaps first look at some scare mongering by Wired, a reputable magazine which is usually better than this. Firstly it shows a letter Apple sent in reply to a questioning one from two Congressmen. One thing this letter does clearly say, is that your iPhone will collect geo-location data and send it to Apple, but anonymously. I'm not quite sure what that word means to some people, but in the IT industry it is pretty clear, it means what it says.
But is making such a fuss about this geo-location tracking wrong? The answer is simple, it neglects a load of far more important facts which relate to one simple thing. Your iPhone data is not encrypted, when it is backed up to your PC it might not be encrypted there either, unless you choose to make it so. This is all iPhone data, not just the tracking information it stores locally.
Anybody who has their iPhone nicked should be far more worried about having any email accounts set up on it compromised, the fact that names, addresses and phone numbers for all their contacts are also on there, as will be username/password restricted access for websites you've chosen to let it remember. Not to mention anything private you've stored away in apps.
The issue here is that none of your personal data on the iPhone is encrypted, not that it tracks where you have been every so often. Making the geo-location the issue is wrong, it isn't one, and it's one of the least interesting bits of data your iPhone carries about you. Sure, a stalker might find it useful, but no more than following you around. Criminals will find other data on there far more useful.
But the other side of the argument isn't being helped by the likes of David Pogue from The New York Times, when he claims that time honoured wrong statement of, "I have nothing to hide. Who cares if anyone knows where I’ve been?" Let us not forget the hilarious antics of Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who in his newspaper column laughed off the issue of identity theft by proudly displaying his bank details. One amusing reader signed him up for a £500 direct debit for the British Diabetic Association.
So if anyone was responsible for a double homocide around the times and locations David Pogue shows in his article, you might want to consider planting evidence in his home and placing a quick call to the local police. Actually please don't, it's a horrible way to prove a point and I'm sure he's a lovely man.
Jason Hiner Calling 3D a Scam Was Wrong
Anyway, he calls it a scam, which is in all senses of the word, wrong. I've seen bits of Avatar demoed on a 3D TV, it is definitely 3D. I took the glasses off and the effect was gone, the image was blurry and double, I put them back on, the image was back in 3D. You can argue about whether you like it or not, about how much you want to pay for it, that is opinion. A scam it is not, and I'm pretty sure if Mr Hiner targeted a specific company or person with his comments on some form of media in the UK, he'd struggle to win any subsequent Libel case brought against him for his choice of words.
Oh, and he also adds in the line, "In fact, optometrists estimate that up to 25% of people get headaches or nausea from simply watching 3D at all." He then links that to the scientific bedrock that is Fox News, which even itself states, "Based on an unscientific, online survey, the American Optometric Association estimates that 25 percent of Americans have experienced headaches, blurred vision, nausea or similar problems when viewing 3-D."
An unscientific, online survey! Who knows if that figure is actually right or wrong, perhaps a scientific survey might actually show it. Until then, let's just not worry about it, especially when the lack of facts fit the narrative we are trying to push. Or would that itself be a scam?
Share Your Own Wrongs
Found things on the Internet which are wrong and winding you up? Send them to me at trebor[at]ku.oc.reweiver and I'll promise to at least look at them and get annoyed. Together maybe we can clean up this mess! Though I expect not.
Previous Page
Posted by Robert John Shepherd
Liking it, this could run and run...
Or I could turn into one of those moaning people I hate so much! I guess time will tell...
Brilliant! I'll start digging some stuff out myself. Oh - and totally agree. The Internet is becoming a complete wild west where anything goes. And don't get me started on Wikepdia. It would be a lifetime's work to sort that out!!
I don't find Wikipedia too bad, usually more accurate than most places anyway. At east it strives to be accurate rather than not caring. ![]()
To a degree. I can only say that an article about a band I played with in the early eighties was totally inaccurate....re-writing history, however slight. I just assume that those slight inaccuracies apply to more important things too.