sunchild

To keep me from advocating an unpopular, but entirely rational, position – all while other people freely misrepresent the First Amendment in response to my comments.

IAAL, and I think you should make up your own mind about what the agreement means. Personally, I think you're over-thinking it, but you shouldn't take my advice, because I don't represent you in this instance. It's a shame that something so simple has to be so dressed up by Apple's legal group in obfuscated language. I also fault Apple for deferring to its outside counsel on these matters. There's nothing stopping them from using plain english that everyone can understand in these agreements. Having said that, I read so many of these things, that I recognize 75% of it as pure "boilerplate" that is for all practical purposes ignored by everyone.

@cooldeal: Nope, I'm dead serious. There's no fundamental human right that entitles you to tell Apple (or any other device maker) what it can and can't sell you.

@recoiledsnake: (for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to reply directly to you)

You're comparing Apple's ecosystem to Earth's.

Apple is a private company that makes products that are sold on the commercial markets. The Earth is something entirely different. If Apple made planets, then yes – they could decide how to manage the atmosphere. That's how business works.

Yes, and never mind that just about everything you take for granted about personal computers was "given" by Apple, too. I find this notion that users are entitled to complete device freedom really annoying.

If you find it so objectionable, go build your own hardware and OS platform. This isn't a matter of human rights because no one is telling you that you can't make your own.

Right, because I can't think of any reason why Apple wouldn't support Flash on a mobile device...

Not to mention that once you've seen one 60 Minutes episode, you've seen them all. It's a legendary formula, but tired as hell.

And the "security" that they desired lost them tablet users on the dominant tablet platform...brilliant!

Are you taking the position that only auto-generated passwords can be secure? I'm trying to understand what conclusion to draw from your comment.

My point was that imposing length validations on passwords is not hard. Complexity validation, while more difficult, is also not exactly a novel problem.

I feel like I'm in bizarro-world with all these people telling me that sending a plaintext password via email is more secure than giving users the option to follow an authenticated link to create their own password because...users can't be trusted to choose good passwords?! Really?

Probably a draw, as you say, since someone could get ahold of an authenticated link in your email, too.

Only if you (admin user) ask it to. Still a bad practice. Also, the premise is that Google trusts itself as an email provider.

"email isn't that easy to intercept and properly nobody is hacking your users physical (or wireless) network".

If you actually believe this, then we will never be in agreement.

A. They don't need to remember any password. They're creating it for the first time.

B. Minimum password length/complexity. It's not hard to do.

I can't believe you're actually arguing that creating a new password is less secure than using an auto-generated password that was sent via email. I hope you are just confused...

And what percentage would – like me – delete their account as soon as you send them a plaintext temp password?

You're living in the past if you think this is an acceptable practice. I don't care how trivial your web service is, if you're throwing my password around willy-nilly, I don't want you.