Our application was rejected because the privacy dialog was missing. The
application is a virtual switchboard client, and uses the PIM to let the
user easily transfer calls and set up conferences; it also uses
NetworkServices to send DTMF tones over an open line, and location to
automatically switch languages. The customer (the operator) does not
want this dialog, and privacy-wise the dialog is redundant since it is
obvious to the user what the application does. Is it possible to avoid
putting this in by having the operator sign a waiver?
Stig Tollefsen
Antares Gruppen AS
"Stig Tollefsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Our application was rejected because the privacy dialog was missing. The
> application is a virtual switchboard client, and uses the PIM to let the
> user easily transfer calls and set up conferences; it also uses
> NetworkServices to send DTMF tones over an open line, and location to
> automatically switch languages. The customer (the operator) does not want
> this dialog, and privacy-wise the dialog is redundant since it is obvious
> to the user what the application does. Is it possible to avoid putting
> this in by having the operator sign a waiver?
That's what I would expect. Operators are the driving force behind Symbian
Signed, so having an operator-requested feature not passing Symbian Signed
is a political oddity.
--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com
Sander van der Wal wrote:
> "Stig Tollefsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...[color=green]
>> Our application was rejected because the privacy dialog was missing. The
>> application is a virtual switchboard client, and uses the PIM to let the
>> user easily transfer calls and set up conferences; it also uses
>> NetworkServices to send DTMF tones over an open line, and location to
>> automatically switch languages. The customer (the operator) does not want
>> this dialog, and privacy-wise the dialog is redundant since it is obvious
>> to the user what the application does. Is it possible to avoid putting
>> this in by having the operator sign a waiver?
>
> That's what I would expect. Operators are the driving force behind Symbian
> Signed, so having an operator-requested feature not passing Symbian Signed
> is a political oddity.
>
>[/color]
However, the waivers are granted by the manufacturer not operator. Not
sure what would happen in this case. IMO displaying the privacy dialog
at least once is not asking for too much.
AMK
"AMK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sander van der Wal wrote:[color=green]
>> "Stig Tollefsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...[color=darkred]
>>> Our application was rejected because the privacy dialog was missing. The
>>> application is a virtual switchboard client, and uses the PIM to let the
>>> user easily transfer calls and set up conferences; it also uses
>>> NetworkServices to send DTMF tones over an open line, and location to
>>> automatically switch languages. The customer (the operator) does not
>>> want this dialog, and privacy-wise the dialog is redundant since it is
>>> obvious to the user what the application does. Is it possible to avoid
>>> putting this in by having the operator sign a waiver?
>>
>> That's what I would expect. Operators are the driving force behind
>> Symbian Signed, so having an operator-requested feature not passing
>> Symbian Signed is a political oddity.
>>
>>[/color]
> However, the waivers are granted by the manufacturer not operator. Not
> sure what would happen in this case. IMO displaying the privacy dialog at
> least once is not asking for too much.[/color]
Operators are the manufacturers biggest clients. It's unlikely that a
manufacturer will refuse such a request. Get the operator involved is what I
would do.
As an alternative, it might be possible for the operator to add a root
certificate to the device so they can do their own signing. But that's a lot
of extra work.
--
Sander van der Wal
www.mBrainSoftware.com