Are you sure about this?

Has every Path user really reviewed Path's data security policies and deemed them satisfactory? Do Path users even have access to that information? And if they did, would most of them be in any position to evaluate it knowledgeably?

Or isn't it more likely that they trust Path because they don't know the full scope of what Path has access to? Blind trust is easier to extend to someone the less information you're trusting them with, after all.

Other points that you are mentioning have more to do with user's willingness to take privacy seriously. Most don't take it seriously because a) it's tedious and time-consuming b) they probably don't understand it c) it is easier to trust the company like everyone else and get onto using the app and 4) ... as long as it does not include criminal, financial, health or their telephone records, everything is pretty much a go go for a user.

Users don't care about their privacy unless it has elements of the 4 categories stated above. Users hate hassle and they have pretty much resigned from the fight for privacy mainly because they have found that the benefit of sharing things with others outweighs the willingness to be clear of a trouble that rarely every shows up in their conscience anyway .... think about it ... when was the last time a major security breach occurred that compromised so many millions and devastated so many thousands that it has left a blip or a bad mark on users conscience.

We maybe very techi ... but average users are far more occupied with other concerns. So blind trust plays a strong role for them.

I'm not saying Path is right for what they did, but neither do I think it's the same as publishing everything where identity thieves can get at it. Such black & white thinking is of little use in creating policy.

You should have read them. All those people who got stung by Adjustable Rate Mortgages? Didn't read the terms either.

Now imagine that an app has terms that are a bit like Adjustable Rate Mortgages.

This really is a false comparison. Accessing an address book for the app's use only and accessing the address book for public publishing are so far apart it's ridiculous. Security policies don't mean anything. If data is stored digitally there will always be a way to compromise its security no matter how much encryption, SSL, etc. you use. Security, especially on the web is a total misnomer. All you can really do is make it inconvenient to access.

Trusting a company isn't about their data privacy and security policies. It's about their brand to a large degree. Their track record and other peoples' experiences with the app. I'm in the camp that understands these policies and what they mean but thats not the reason I trust the company behind an app. I trust Google with my docs because they have a good track record. Facebook I trust as a necessary evil. Scratch that, I don't trust Facebook but I use it anyway because I'm banking on the odds. I think that's what it boils down to for most average folks. If the odds are that they'll have no trouble then that's a risk they're willing to take. If there's a breach of security and a bunch of people have their data exposed (but I'm not affected) well that makes me think twice not because of the breach itself but because of all the pile-on press coverage.

I'm one who firmly believes that people don't make their own minds up about this stuff. The average person's view of this whole app uploading address books thing is based purely in whichever side of the manufactured debate is the loudest and seemingly most expert-y. After watching how people use the web, their computers, and their smartphones for some time now I've become really cynical when it comes to this stuff. People don't seem to care until someone writes a blog post that tells them they should care.

But that's the point, isn't it? They shouldn't have to care! People shouldn't have to be security experts to use a phone. The phone should protect them by default and make them have to jump through hoops to waive that protection, rather than the other way around.

Putting yourself in a situation where you are very likely to get mugged would be better comparison. Winer is being mild in his challenge.

So yeah, I agree it's not in the same league, but not in the way you mean.

When you upload to an app, the makers of that app have access to your data. Don't get me wrong- that's a bad thing. But if you upload your data publicly, anyone in the world has access to your data. Drastically different.

No way they are running their operation on the cheap and don't have their servers secured against intrusion.

No way they can be inexperienced developers and build an API that leaks information to improperly authenticated requests.

No way they can have a disgruntled employee throw a torrent of it all up when he gets fired.

No way they can get bought by someone with fewer scruples and hand your data over to them as part of the acquisition.

But they aren't really relevant to the parent comment's point, which is that, even with these (potential) holes giving your address book to Path is fundamentally different than posting it publicly. In one instance, your data is public, immediately and unconditionally. In the other, there is potential for abuse that could result in your data becoming public if an arguably unlikely sequence of events were to occur.

So it doesn't make any sense at all for Winer to be challenging PD to engage in a behavior that is simply not analogous to the issue at hand. All that Winer's post does is distort the issue, intentionally or not, and distract from the important debate/conversation that Path's policies initiated. I honestly don't see how that's helpful at all.

[UPDATED: Minor correct for clearer syntax]

I once did a deal with a software publisher that required me to turn over the source code.

One day I came into the office and found a disk clearly labeled as the source for my product, on the receptionists desk.

That was pretty close to public, and I remember that every time I let something sensitive out of my control.

Also every few months I have to change my credit card number because a charge appears that I didn't make. Luckily the credit card companies have developed good algorithms for detecting these. Now you might assume that every company that you give your CC to is being careful not to make it public, but if you believe that, you aren't reading the news.

I think the same applies to apps. There is a sensible middle ground in there somewhere, and the new permission request alerts from Apple will go a long way to helping with that. But no, never any guarantees about anything.