BA released an Android App update with inappropriate permissions requested (basically access to certain parts of history for the device). Much backlash on Google Play store, BA claimed mistake and re released App.
Of course they did.
Being a "check the details" person - I ALWAYS read every EULA that comes up on the screen before I click on the "Yes" for installation.
One of the biggest surprises (
Ok in call-a-spade-a-spade moment - SHOCK) came when I read the change to the Aplle EULA around 2007/8.
It followed the normal legal practise of burying the real terms that matter approx 100-150 lines from the end.
IF you have ever read an Apple EULA rather than just agree immediately - have you ever made it all the way through or did you give up and concede that you'd give away your first born to get your new iPhone (or in 2007/8 iPod Touch) working?
The Apple EULA has several nasty 'NSA-like' stings in it. The most interesting is that
you, the user, give Apple permission to examine whatever storage device you connect the Apple iPod, iPad, iPhone to. You permit them to use the information gained in any way they see fit and to pass it on to whoever they deem worthy of receiving it.
So between Google and Apple - you're known.
Did you notice around 2006 Google changed the way it goes to one of the links that come up on a search?
Previously you left the Google ecosystem and went immediately via the most direct route to the ip address of the item. Up until around 2006 you did have the choice of navigating via Google's own servers to get to the link.
Google used to say that their servers COULD be faster (than Microsoft even) and it allowed them to 'better personalise the adverts you receive to ENHANCE your user experience'.
Now that choice has gone and it happens regardless of your wishes.
So of course BA made a mistake with its app. It is not as if the UK intelligence apparatus would want any information...
