11–20 of 140 posts
Axiom 1: Company is collecting and storing personal data that you voluntarily provide Axiom 2: Company does not charge you for this service Axiom 3: Company has no other visible means of income Axiom 4: Company has non-trivial operating expenses Given that this covers a huge amount of "our digital life", there are a few possible solutions: - Keep getting services without paying money but paying with privacy - Identif…
> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…
I'm a pretty firm believer in Hanlon's razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), except when it comes to lawyers. They tend to put a lot of thought into what they write, and understand the ramifications of their words.
> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…
People all over the technology industry fall over themselves trying to predict what these companies are going to do. A lot of them fail. Changing the ToS is a big deal because its tangible and meaningful. Intent is hard to define and I don't think folks should get the habit of assuming a companies intentions.
If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.
> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…
I'll be honest. If it wasn't for Big Bang Theory, I'd have no clue who this guy was. Even with reference to Star Trek, I can't remember his character. Not sure why I'd care about his opinion on a semi-tech related topic (I know, not about me and my own opinion).
Interesting. There are a few things though : - Facebook did prove it : most users dont read/care about TOS ( CGU here ), as long as they get stuff for free. You can do the most outrageous things with user data ( google ), people dont mind as long as they get value out of the service. > Seth Green walking through an Urban Outfitters, does that mean Urban Outfitters can take that image and use it to create an implied e…
A blog post musing about the threat to agency posed by free to use services that rely on farming personal data for revenue posted on … Google Plus?
If I see an ad about (insert product name) in my (insert Google product) stream, it is something that only I can see. If you see a picture of me (perhaps uploaded by a "friend" to a site like instagram) used to advertised products to you, then my privacy has been severely breached.
> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…