Look, if you want to write an article with the basic premise that Apple’s statement about the iPhone location database is false, you should really have the guts to lead with that assertion. Instead, you seem to have grossly misrepresented the Apple statement, giving your readers the impression that Apple “acknowledged” that the file is part of a system that reports the phone location to Apple. I read the Apple statement, and it said no such thing.
I found this statement especially egregious: “And the vast amounts of data being collected by application developers and mobile advertisers will continue, regardless of Apple's fix for the tracking file.
” How can you reconcile that with Apple’s statement that “Location is not shared with any third party or ad unless the user explicitly approves giving the current location to the current ad (for example, to request the ad locate the Target store nearest them)?
” Again, unless you claim Apple is lying, you have given your readers the false impression that advertisers are getting location data without users’ permission.
In fairness, you’ve carefully avoided making any statement that is actually false. But your repeated use of the phrase “tracking file” and the word “acknowledge” amounts to saying “Apple acknowledged this tracking file is not used for tracking.”
Maybe you should be writing about the president’s birth certificate instead.
Sincerely,
Update [2011-05-01]: A second article by Wolverton and Mike Swift arguably crosses the line from misleading to false in its opening:
The disclosure of a hidden file on iPhones late last month drew an outcry because it seemed to record users’ every move. But that isn’t the only way mobile phone users’ movements are being tracked.While the first sentence weasels with “seemed to,” the second sentence has a clear, unambiguous meaning in context. It replaces the uncertainty of seeming with the certitude of fact. That lie spoils what would otherwise have been a worthwhile piece on what happens with actual tracking data.
