"Lookout is a mobile security firm, and it logged data from more than 100,000 free Android and iPhone apps as part of the project to analyze how apps behave. It found that the apps access your personal data quite often. On Android, each user is asked if they give their permission to access an app, but on the iPhone, where Apple approves apps, no permission is needed." - http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010... - paula simoes ☃

A "walled garden" is not a good idea because it gives you a false sense of security. - paula simoes ☃

"Applications developed for iPhone are more likely than those on the Android platform to access sensitive information on mobile devices, according to mobile security company Lookout." (...) "While more free Android applications (47 percent) include third-party code than comparable iPhone applications (23 percent), Lookout says that the permission model of the iPhone platform makes it easier for such code to cause applications to access sensitive data." - http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms... - paula simoes ☃

"Piece of crap" article. The comments there already explain the issue, tho, the same way Paula already explainted (with numbers) the flaw in the argument. As I said yesterday on twitter, "from a security prespective, in a market you can only have (1) a permissions scheme or (2) code-reviewed open source apps", "since the business model of both iOS and Android's markets is what it is, only a "permissions scheme" is feasible", "I agree that Android's permissions scheme should be enhanced and more user friendly, but it is better than nothing (iOS)". - Marcos Marado