Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

There is a difference between 'the user requested to deactivate the service', and 'the user paused the service', he may or may not wish to continue using it, gray area right?

It can probably save them from a legal mess if they 'resume' it in future updates.



sort by: page size:

(Assuming the title hasn't been changed…) Removed from service isn't the same as disabled? To my mind they're synonymous. But I suppose the former may sound a little more inflammatory.

Interestingly, the initial email reported the cause to be a ToS violation.


i didn't say anything to the contrary. of course it can be disabled. but am i going to allow it to be disabled for some of my employees if my customers start demanding that i use this feature while i develop their software? probably not until there is a lawsuit that clarifies which need takes precedence.

> "disabled" is semantically different from "this action is in progress"

Different, but not contradictory. Disabling just means "user can't do that", which is semantically reasonable when you don't want the user to do that. That stays true when the ultimate cause is that they already did that.


Well, my train of thought is that disabled means it won't work for whatever period of time while removed means it won't work ever again because it's gone.

I believe the actual term is “deactivated”.

Fair enough.

It was a support request, and IIRC they disabled it remotely.


It is not legal to use it without activating it indefinitely.

Hmm, disabling with a notice is not a bad middle-ground actually. For the worst offenders.

>> which can be resolved by "deactivate / reactivate"

Nope.


Does it get disabled? Yes. It seems to disable by 180 days, maybe a bit sooner (too lazy to nail the number down at the moment).

Is it a bug, or desired functionality? I think it's desired functionality, not a bug.

Why? I might throw out some guesses, but I don't really know.


Disabled to make automation (corporate installations) difficult, perhaps?

I find it mind-boggling that people actually put up with (or defend) user-unfriendly behavior like this.


He disabled the device.

And you don't see the issue?


Disabled but not uninstalled. That's what people are asking for.

This is like one of those cheap phones that you can't uninstall Facebook on.


> Also trivially disabled, again, unlike the location tracking the Register is describing here which cannot be turned off.

The tracking absolutely can be turned off. The register's original article is somewhat confused on this.

(disclaimer: googler)


"you can disable this" is the critical difference.

The point is that just because something is enabled at some point doesn't mean it can't be disabled at a later point. The original poster didn't seem to think ME is really disabled just because at some point it was enabled.

Not sure I understand your point. I read "it's not that they did not know how to disable the feature, it's just that they were not told how to disable the feature".

Or are you saying that they knew, but somehow did not do it?


Meh, you're probably right. If nothing else, I'd want to verify the result of trying to use a disabled account (text in the dialog is localized, et. al.) Run through the scenario before I formally write the case and...WTF? Yeah, I could see that.

The difference seems to be:

disabled - the service is not started automatically

masked - the service can't be started at all, even explicitly requested by user or app

next

Legal | privacy