That makes sense in theory but from what I've seen it doesn't always work that way. Most people don't stop using something and complain really loudly. Luckily, so far the people behind the sites or apps or whatever hold their ground and in this case I can certainly get on board with the popular opinion that apps should ask for permission first. I wasn't condoning that kind of thing but simply wondering what if it really was something frivolous like G+ not allowing naked profile pictures or something and they ended up giving into the pressure? We talk a lot about slippery slopes around here and I just applied that kind of thinking to this sort of thing.
I also wonder how much of this outrage is genuine and how much is just people thinking they should be outraged. Personally, I'd have no problem with apps getting the contents of my address book. Of course thats conditional but what I'm getting at is that this sort of thing isn't okay or not okay by itself, it's how it's framed that often makes it looked at this way. In this case it was framed as a terrible invasion of privacy with lots of room for security issues. What if it was framed as being awesome because it totally enhances the experience of the app? Maybe around here we're qualified to say "this is okay, that isn't" because of our knowledge and backgrounds but think of regular folks playing Angry Birds on their phones having no clue what a iOS is. I'm not sure they really have an opinion until you give them one and thats exactly what we're doing. So when you say they'd be just as content knowing its going on you're correct but I'm not so sure they'd come to the conclusion that it was bad while they didn't know totally on their own. I can totally picture a lot of regular folks finding out and saying "oh, they upload the address book? I didn't notice. Whatever." and continue on with their day. Of course that won't happen now because of how this is reported.
Anyway, I'm sorry to see so many people having such strong negative reactions to my original comment. Maybe I didn't make the point clear enough or maybe my thinking really is just way off on this one. Either way, I still maintain that these what-if questions will really get you thinking differently about this stuff.
You do make a good point, we as a collective hold different standards for different companies sometimes. Facebook catches a lot more shit for their mistakes than some other companies. Google catches a lot of shit even when they specifically outline and allow you to opt-in to their policies. When Microsoft does something it's monopolistic, when Apple does the same thing it's "value-added".
The big thing is, I don't know Path as a company. They haven't been around a long time, they don't have a huge, trusting userbase. You assume that they have the information you've given them. You assume they use it for ads or other pseudo-anonymous stuff. What you don't expect is that they will be grabbing things off your phone that you didn't explicitly allow them access to. Programs on your desktop don't hijack the information from other installed programs.
Maybe the line of thinking is faulty for mobile OSes. Maybe it's a chance to start fresh and allow full access across all apps. But the main cry in this controversy is that the users want to at least feel they are in control, even if it's just "install and accept the terms, or don't install period".
Heath Ledger said it best, I think, in The Dark Knight. "Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying!" Request from the users all the information on their phone and permissions to everything, then present them with an intriguing product. I'll bet a great majority of those who would have installed it would still install it because, like you said, it really does enhance the awesomeness of the app. A little truth goes a long way.
At any rate, this will likely be forgotten in short notice when the next outrage begins.
I also wonder how much of this outrage is genuine and how much is just people thinking they should be outraged. Personally, I'd have no problem with apps getting the contents of my address book. Of course thats conditional but what I'm getting at is that this sort of thing isn't okay or not okay by itself, it's how it's framed that often makes it looked at this way. In this case it was framed as a terrible invasion of privacy with lots of room for security issues. What if it was framed as being awesome because it totally enhances the experience of the app? Maybe around here we're qualified to say "this is okay, that isn't" because of our knowledge and backgrounds but think of regular folks playing Angry Birds on their phones having no clue what a iOS is. I'm not sure they really have an opinion until you give them one and thats exactly what we're doing. So when you say they'd be just as content knowing its going on you're correct but I'm not so sure they'd come to the conclusion that it was bad while they didn't know totally on their own. I can totally picture a lot of regular folks finding out and saying "oh, they upload the address book? I didn't notice. Whatever." and continue on with their day. Of course that won't happen now because of how this is reported.
Anyway, I'm sorry to see so many people having such strong negative reactions to my original comment. Maybe I didn't make the point clear enough or maybe my thinking really is just way off on this one. Either way, I still maintain that these what-if questions will really get you thinking differently about this stuff.