[foobarbazetc]

Do you really expect Apple to MITM every app (and update) to make sure that every developer in the world isn't sending random stuff to their servers?

Are you really that anti-Apple to believe that?

Blame the developer, not the distributor.

[Kylekramer]

I've bitched about how restrictive Apple is with the App Store plenty, but that ship has sailed a long time ago. But once you decided to have a restrictive app store and declare to provide "freedom from programs that steal your private data" (http://gawker.com/5539717/), be the best damn restrictive app store you can be and actually provide freedom from programs that steal your private data. Apple has inserted themselves as necessary component in the developer-customer relationship of iOS (and even declared privacy as one of the reasons why they are necessary), so they damn well should take some blame here.

[jonknee]

Yes, or at least not allow open APIs that make it so simple. What else is the point of a walled garden? They're able to make sure all their other arcane rules are followed (like Amazon linking to their web store), they should be able to keep data safe.

[bri3d]

It would be absolutely trivial for Apple to flag apps which use the Address Book APIs for closer inspection (including making sure that the user has to opt in to have their Address Book sent anywhere) - the same Apple tool which detects access to unauthorized ("private") Objective-C APIs could just as easily flag access to the AddressBook framework.