Hacker News Reader

Comment by thebiglebrewski | Hacker News Reader

Wow. Well I think that settles that!

On a similar note, I've always thought Daniel Ek was a pretty upstanding guy.

It only settles it when they formulate a new TOS that does not give them the freedom to completely ignore what they say are the reasons for accessing things like photos. If you have only features abc in mind, why formulate a TOS where you have access to the whole a-z?

I don't even use spotify but I logged in just up vote you. The HN hivemind is real.

Is it possible to just take Daniel Ek's word on this one? If you're so upset, couldn't you just disallow access?

Is it possible to just take Daniel Ek's word on this one?

lol. Of course not. He's a CEO being given access and legal permission to material with business value beyond what they're currently claiming to use it for. What exactly is so unique about Daniel Ek that I should take his word?

I have to trust that he's not being deceptive, will never change his mind, and can influence the course of action taken with my data for the life of the company and beyond (when assets are sold off if Spotify fails)?

I don't even use Spotify, so this is all moot to me. It just sounds goddamn crazy to take his word on this one.

The ToS is Spotify's word on this matter. If the ToS says they can do X, you can only assume they are going to do X. An apology doesn't fix the problem, no amount of grovelling by the CEO changes anything until the ToS are fixed.

> Is it possible to just take Daniel Ek's word on this one?

Maybe, but the question is irrelevant.

I do business with people every day who I fundamentally trust. But we sign contracts anyways.

If what Ek is saying is true, then there is no reason for the T&Cs to not reflect it.

It could be, say, the catholic pope and still the privacy and PII selling problem would remain the same, so who cares who Daniel Ek is? The damage had been done already, on such bad timing... Apple must be loving this fallout.

EDIT: I am not saying PII selling was the main problem here but I believe this is what usually people fear when these TOS changes come, and I think they are right in thinking so

If you are a user on most stock android devices, then no, you can't, outside of not installing the app. (Which IMHO is a major defect in android and annoying to solve for app makers, but that's the environment they have to keep in mind)

Yeah, the android permissions model is absolutely terrible; not sure if iOS is any better (actually, I think it might be worse). Not only is it incredibly non-granular, but it also seems to be an all-or-nothing, and there's no way to control global permissions either.

Permissions are now granular in Android 6.0, and even for apps which weren't built against the newer SDK, you can turn off permissions individually.

for android users it doesn't settle anything. "Photos: We will never access your photos without explicit permission", but what does that mean? When the app is installed the user has to give permission to the app to access photos otherwise it won't install. So there's no state in which, on Android at least, the user can deny access to photos to the app, as the app has been given permission already at install.

So this 'sorry' is really a lot of hoopla which changes nothing: Android users still have to trust them that they won't access my photos if I don't use them in their app and won't access any other elements on my phone when I am just listening to some music.

You're right, but he's clarifying that that's all they use that permission for. It might be worth auditing the app on a rooted device to see what it actually does though.

Uninstalling Spotify settled it. Also, WTF is with having to talk to a representative to delete my account completely.

All this is is pinky swearing that they won't do what you have to explicitly allow them to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com