11–20 of 249 posts
Aren't contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I was under the impression that any contract that said perpetual anything could be trivially disregarded. Or is that a regional thing?
Also if any lawyers read this - If "perpetual" isn't binding, would say "The next 200 years" be binding? It's an explicit time period but effectively still "indefinite" for the lifetime of an individual.
It's worse when it has access to your picture because a friend thought it'd be funny. In that situation the App gets my picture without my consent.
This is the reason I have just stopped bothering about privacy. I meticulously guard which apps I share my phonebook with, while other idiots share their entire contacts folder (including my details) en-masse to apps like TrueCaller. It just feels so futile to even care.
The best I figure I can do is to keep the apps I used locked down if possible - and to avoid "stupid" apps that clearly have little purpose other then dataharvesting.
Cool Selfy app? Ehh pass.
Hmm. Would it be possible to run these Apps in a VM like container? allow it access a dummy, empty folder to read from somewhat of a container for all apps? then there would be a manual transfer process between the shared folders after you've saved an image? So when downloading an App it will ask would you want to run this in an isolated environment? and you can, so if it tries to scan over your photo gallery it will…
This is a scoping issue. On iOS devices at least no app has access to your photo gallery unless they explicitly prompt you for permission. That said, many apps need access to the photo gallery - say I want to put a screenshot into discord. The issue is that now Discord has access to ALL of my photos. There needs to be more scoping options. "Allow access to previous 12 photos while you're using the app" kinda deal.
Aren't contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding? I was under the impression that any contract that said perpetual anything could be trivially disregarded. Or is that a regional thing?
> You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public.
This is standard language that is generally enforceable. It is the license that is perpetual, not the contract.
It's worse when it has access to your picture because a friend thought it'd be funny. In that situation the App gets my picture without my consent.
How is FaceApp different than all other apps and social networks that are storing all your photos with location and tags to your friends except that FaceApp is a Russian company?
I'm not defending FaceApp. I don't use social networks either for the same reasons. But this double standards in media is ridiculous in my opinion.
Hmm. Would it be possible to run these Apps in a VM like container? allow it access a dummy, empty folder to read from somewhat of a container for all apps? then there would be a manual transfer process between the shared folders after you've saved an image? So when downloading an App it will ask would you want to run this in an isolated environment? and you can, so if it tries to scan over your photo gallery it will…
This is a scoping issue. On iOS devices at least no app has access to your photo gallery unless they explicitly prompt you for permission. That said, many apps need access to the photo gallery - say I want to put a screenshot into discord. The issue is that now Discord has access to ALL of my photos. There needs to be more scoping options. "Allow access to previous 12 photos while you're using the app" kinda deal.
It's worse when it has access to your picture because a friend thought it'd be funny. In that situation the App gets my picture without my consent.
Can a friend agree to these terms when it is my face, my name, and my private data though?
It's worse when it has access to your picture because a friend thought it'd be funny. In that situation the App gets my picture without my consent.
There are two possible conclusions to draw.
One is that the general public actually doesn’t care about privacy at all. It’s a niche concern.
The other is that the general public cares but is completely and utterly clueless about how to defend themselves, to the point that an app can literally say “give us your name and face and we can do whatever we want with it in perpetuity throughout the universe” and people will happily oblige.
I don’t know which one is correct but neither one is great.