Talk:Apple collecting location data from iPhone, iPad

Chance to expand(?)

Might I suggest anyone with an Android phone take a good look at this too? What if you use Google Maps? Is the information stored in the phone - or in Google's database?

Screaming about an iPhone doing this seems a little overly alarmist when there are dozens of other ways the data can be stored.

I can, from speaking with him a couple of times, say this is exactly why Richard Stallman never carries a cellphone; he doesn't even trust them not to log his location whilst supposedly 'switched off'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Android phones do, do the same thing, and people are being overly alarmist. I tried to revise the article to make it more neutral and state more of the facts, including the Android bit. I think most people need to understand that the primary purpose for collecting this data is to enable feature that the users not only use, but demand. People are being seriously over alrmist if they think they as individuals are so important or special that a company like Apple or Google is actually interested in their personal location. The data is all collected and aggregated, there is nothing nefarious about it. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF are "Spammy Bits?

What was spam like in the article as I had it? Fetchcom took an article and decimated it, cutting it down into a blurb! I don't know if I have the energy or motivation to repair the damage... Tadpole256 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Took a minute, but I was able to fix most of it and turn it back into a proper article... Revised some wording, smoothed some things out, restored a lot of vital information that was removed by amateur hour editing, but I think it's better over all. Still feels like it could use a little smoothing, but should be ready for release. Tadpole256 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but some of what you added reads like a blog. We should not be using "you" or "your". In addition, not all the information re-added was supported by the sources. Ii suspect you re-added the near-copyvio/closely paraphrased bits, too. Incredible.

I'd hardly consider my work incredible, but it was better than the article as it stands now is. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Apple's iPhone and iPad are attracting a lot of scrutiny in light of the recent discovery that the devices may be secretly saving personal data about where you have been." The data is not secret. Also, see my comment above about using "you".

You need lessons in compelling writing. People have to be interested in reading a story. Read some news papers, then get back to me. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"You" assumes the reader owns one of these devices. (I don't much like it, either, but that's another point entirely.) Also, not secret stands, unless of course you can raise a valid objection to that. Sensationalism to attract interest does not fit with quality and is not the path we have decided to take. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• "However, users can opt to encrypt the file when they synch their iPhone or iPad with their computer." Other than the misspelling of "sync", which source states this?

Apple says this. The iPhone / iPad set-up says this. I own both. It's a fact. Don't be mad. Just give the people the pertinent data. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Something being true does not change the fact that something must be sourced. For the record, I would accept a fairly detailed explanation of how to get that information from an iPhone and an iPad and the above statement of ownership as valid, though I would prefer a link. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re. false statement about Google's decline to comment: "Google declined to comment on the findings.". I changed the article to say that they commented on maps usage, but not directly to the latest findings, which is what the WSJ source says.

Well that's a little better, it looks pretty asinine to write "google refused to comment" immediately after a line that starts with "according to google". This is one of the reasons I called the edits Amateur hour. Just don't take it personally, keep working towards a better product and you'll learn as you go. We all make mistakes.Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Apple relies on the data to enable it's "find my phone" capability offered to those who subscribe to the optional "Mobile Me" services. " Disregarding the improper use of "it's" (could you please, please, copyedit before re-adding material that was removed for a good reason?), I can't find any mention of MobileMe in the sources.

Go to the Apple Web site, or by an iPhone. Does even common knowledge have to be sourced? Fine, the source is me. Don't be dippy, just leave pertinent information in. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Go to the Apple Web site" - such is not cited as a source in this article. "[O]r by^[sic] an iPhone" - I trust you'll be paying for it, and a motorcycle courier to get it to me in a reasonable timeframe for a review? This is not common knowledge except among owners of the devices; again, as above, if you'd actually said you did and explained things here on the talk page that would be fine. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Re. the open source software ... etc., that's for the previous discovery of the unsecured file; the sources for this news story do not focus on that event, but rather on a different discovery of different data, and therefore the mention of the software is irrelevant to the article's focus.

You could not be more wrong. The open source software only works now because the file in unencrypted. In previous versions of the OS the file was encrypted, and thus inaccessible. This is a new development! Why don't you do some reading and learn a thing or two about a subject before you try to butcher someone else's article on it. That's basic journalism. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the dispute itself, but will note that if the subject isn't clear to an intelligent person without foreknowledge when they come to read an article, then the article does not meet our (high) standards. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tadpole, I think you are missing the fact that there are two different sets of data: the unsecured one in the file, which Apple has clearly said is not transmitted off the device; and the data they collect and send to a secure database. I can't find any sources saying the unsecured data is the one they are sending to a remote server. —fetch·comms 23:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Lastly, the article after my edits was certainly not a "blurb" (which is only a few sentences in length), but rather a decently copyedited article that followed the sources. Because the sources do not support everything and the tone is in places not newsworthy, I have restored my version. I will happily restore your edits and give them a proper copyedit if you can present the sources that support all the material. (Given that the WSJ has already contradicted one of your comments, I am unsure how that will work.) It is worth noting that bickering over a few bytes of text will not get this article reviewed, so if we want to see it published, then adherence to the style guide and sources is mandatory. Best, —fetch·comms 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry leave your crap version up, I will publish the better version myself. I see there is going to be a lot of need for me to do that around here, between under qualified reviewers and slow reviews (which have gotten better) It's amazing this site has lasted so long. It's a shame too, so much potential... Tadpole256 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• As a final note, I do not want to see this descend into a theatre of war or breach of WN:E. We've pretty much all breached that at some point or other - I've breached that, I've breached it very badly - but it's time we started sticking to it. The policies we have are actually okay if we pay them some attention. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1219411 [Passed]

Revision 1219411 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: With thanks to Fetchcomms for fixing this up. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1219411 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: With thanks to Fetchcomms for fixing this up. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.