![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And how can we get it back please - this company is a hot topic right now and information about it should be shared. 173.61.89.60 ( talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chris
I too would like to know what stick was up that moderator's ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.188.61 ( talk) 09:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the final sentence in the first section, the article mentions 'HTC Corporation' and links to HTC's Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Corporation). However, the source (citation 4) states that the HTC it is referring to is 'Huawei Technologies Co.' whose Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei . I suggest this is fixed quickly to avoid confusion. I didn't want to make the edit myself as I'm not a registered user and I suspect my edit may be reverted. 86.164.206.93 ( talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
CyanogenMod team announced "We would like to assure everyone that Carrier IQ has never, and will never be a part of our Operating System". [1] • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add links to useful articles here...so other authors can use for this article:
Here are some other articles. CNET carrier iq more privacy alarms more confusion All Things Digital Carrier IQ Responds There was some followup testing done by Dan Rosenberg who works full time as a security consultant. Please reference his twitter page user is djrbliss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsilver668 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 December 2011
There are definitely some red flags that need to be watched. The company changed CEO's in August and struck a partnership with a third party (contrary to all claims that third parties were not be involved) Nielsen in October. It's something to keep an eye on. Everything in the history of the company is tracked back to venture capitalists (including its founder) -- and not folks with technology passions. This is what happens when VC's solely rule the nest. Americasroof ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please rewrite and include other viewpoints and facts. This is too focused on the privacy problems and is biased towards a negative view of the topic. - M0rphzone ( talk) 19:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
there's a positive view?
This article appears to have been written from the standpoint of elaborating in great detail every minutiae of the current controversy as it was happening. If the controversy officially ended tomorrow with Carrier IQ exonerated then the current level of detail would look quite inappropriate and out of place in a few months' time. This is the difficulty of writing about current issues and we have to work on this article with the lasting significance in mind. The whole thing will need to be edited down, avoiding excessive detail so it reads more like a summary (detail is available in the sources, we link to those for a reason you know) and restructured in a more sensible way. For example why is the controversy covered under multiple disconnected level 2 (==
) headings? Why is "Updates" used as a section title?
On the other side of things, it also scores poorly on tone and neutrality. As much as I think CIQ deserves everything it gets for sending a cease and desist to that guy, a number of reputable articles appeared last week suggesting that the controversy might be overblown and CIQ might only be doing what they say they're doing after all (eg,
[1]). Their absence has been noticed, especially given how feverish editing has been to cover every other aspect. Quoting CIQ's entire response verbatim does not neutrality make. Similarly the article uses phrases like, On December 1, 2011, Carrier IQ issued a "clarification" to its November 23 statements - why is 'clarification' in inverted commas if not to send a message to the reader about the author's opinion of CIQ's statement?
I am willing to help here, but not until the dust has settled a little and certainly not unless other people recognise the problems. –
Steel
17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/tracking-software-caught-snooping-on-millions-of-smartphone-users-6606335 "Tracking Software Caught Snooping on Millions of Smartphones", "Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has discovered what appears to be a flagrant new intrusion into smartphone users’ privacy: Monitoring software by a company called Carrier IQ that comes automatically installed on Android, Blackberry, and other smartphones, records every interaction a user has with the device, and then beams that information off the phone." by Glenn Derene December 1, 2011 12:00 PM
See Computer surveillance 99.19.40.211 ( talk) 07:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Added an explanation of why Carrier IQ's points regarding the alleged privacy of their spyware package are moot, but forgot to sign in first.. Zaphraud ( talk) 06:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And how can we get it back please - this company is a hot topic right now and information about it should be shared. 173.61.89.60 ( talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chris
I too would like to know what stick was up that moderator's ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.188.61 ( talk) 09:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the final sentence in the first section, the article mentions 'HTC Corporation' and links to HTC's Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Corporation). However, the source (citation 4) states that the HTC it is referring to is 'Huawei Technologies Co.' whose Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei . I suggest this is fixed quickly to avoid confusion. I didn't want to make the edit myself as I'm not a registered user and I suspect my edit may be reverted. 86.164.206.93 ( talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
CyanogenMod team announced "We would like to assure everyone that Carrier IQ has never, and will never be a part of our Operating System". [1] • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add links to useful articles here...so other authors can use for this article:
Here are some other articles. CNET carrier iq more privacy alarms more confusion All Things Digital Carrier IQ Responds There was some followup testing done by Dan Rosenberg who works full time as a security consultant. Please reference his twitter page user is djrbliss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsilver668 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 December 2011
There are definitely some red flags that need to be watched. The company changed CEO's in August and struck a partnership with a third party (contrary to all claims that third parties were not be involved) Nielsen in October. It's something to keep an eye on. Everything in the history of the company is tracked back to venture capitalists (including its founder) -- and not folks with technology passions. This is what happens when VC's solely rule the nest. Americasroof ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please rewrite and include other viewpoints and facts. This is too focused on the privacy problems and is biased towards a negative view of the topic. - M0rphzone ( talk) 19:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
there's a positive view?
This article appears to have been written from the standpoint of elaborating in great detail every minutiae of the current controversy as it was happening. If the controversy officially ended tomorrow with Carrier IQ exonerated then the current level of detail would look quite inappropriate and out of place in a few months' time. This is the difficulty of writing about current issues and we have to work on this article with the lasting significance in mind. The whole thing will need to be edited down, avoiding excessive detail so it reads more like a summary (detail is available in the sources, we link to those for a reason you know) and restructured in a more sensible way. For example why is the controversy covered under multiple disconnected level 2 (==
) headings? Why is "Updates" used as a section title?
On the other side of things, it also scores poorly on tone and neutrality. As much as I think CIQ deserves everything it gets for sending a cease and desist to that guy, a number of reputable articles appeared last week suggesting that the controversy might be overblown and CIQ might only be doing what they say they're doing after all (eg,
[1]). Their absence has been noticed, especially given how feverish editing has been to cover every other aspect. Quoting CIQ's entire response verbatim does not neutrality make. Similarly the article uses phrases like, On December 1, 2011, Carrier IQ issued a "clarification" to its November 23 statements - why is 'clarification' in inverted commas if not to send a message to the reader about the author's opinion of CIQ's statement?
I am willing to help here, but not until the dust has settled a little and certainly not unless other people recognise the problems. –
Steel
17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/tracking-software-caught-snooping-on-millions-of-smartphone-users-6606335 "Tracking Software Caught Snooping on Millions of Smartphones", "Security researcher Trevor Eckhart has discovered what appears to be a flagrant new intrusion into smartphone users’ privacy: Monitoring software by a company called Carrier IQ that comes automatically installed on Android, Blackberry, and other smartphones, records every interaction a user has with the device, and then beams that information off the phone." by Glenn Derene December 1, 2011 12:00 PM
See Computer surveillance 99.19.40.211 ( talk) 07:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Added an explanation of why Carrier IQ's points regarding the alleged privacy of their spyware package are moot, but forgot to sign in first.. Zaphraud ( talk) 06:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)