1. Path was fined, not for anything involving address books, but for allowing 12 year olds to sign up for the service.
That's not true, is it? According to the FTC[1], they were fined for "collecting personal information from their mobile device address books without their knowledge and consent."
2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somewhere along the way, the user knowingly gave Path access to their contacts.
Giving them permission to read the address book (which might be useful and perfectly legitimate) and giving them permission to send everyone in that address book spam is two very different things.
1. The sub title: "Company also Will Pay $800,000 for Allegedly Collecting Kids' Personal Information without their Parents’ Consent" The fine was only with regard to the violation of CIPA.
That's not true, is it? According to the FTC[1], they were fined for "collecting personal information from their mobile device address books without their knowledge and consent."
2. Yes... it is proof that Path uploads your phone book. Of course, they ask you. The OS won't even give you access to the phone book without prompting the user. So somewhere along the way, the user knowingly gave Path access to their contacts.
Giving them permission to read the address book (which might be useful and perfectly legitimate) and giving them permission to send everyone in that address book spam is two very different things.
[1] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/02/path.shtm