101–110 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…
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…
I can share pictures (Group MMS & Shared Photostreams) and find out what people are doing (texting, phone calls & email) without giving up that information.
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…
If you take a picture of me and upload it on instagram, I have not agreed to their tos and have not voluntarily given them anything. So no, this does not exactly compare with facebook.
Gets a little dicey when your image is used in a way that could be viewed as you endorsing something, like an ad or a service. For that I use a pretty blanket model release form, but it's a grey area. Unless you are rich and famous. They have their own set of rules.
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…
Also: "axiom"? How about "fact"?
Google+ is no different: 11.2 you agree that this license includes a right for google to make such content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such content in connection with the provision of those services. 11.3 you understand that google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the services t…
The current version of the TOS say, in part: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly displ…
Google's current privacy policy includes the statement:
"We believe personal information should not be held hostage and we are committed to building products that let users export their personal information to other services. We don’t sell users’ personal information."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Axiom 3: Company has no other visible means of income This is not true. There are plenty of other ways for social sites to make money. If Twitter is doing billions off promoted Tweets, then surely a company like Facebook which has even more data on you can make a similar amount selling standard targeted advertising. What we are seeing here is crossing the line. The worst thing is, this data was acquired under compl…
That "contract" you had with all those sites specifically stated that the business could change the terms of the contract at any time in the future. If you don't like that stipulation, then don't agree to those terms and don't use those services.
While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "contract" you had with all those sites specifically stated that the business could change the terms of the contract at any time in the future. If you don't like that stipulation, then don't agree to those terms and don't use those services.
You can't just unilaterally change a contract and expect it to be valid. My understanding of things like this is so that if things do change, the company can offer up a new TOS/contract which would supersede the previous.
On the other hand, we've all now all got always-on always-connected computers in our pockets that already have more computing power than typical web servers a decade ago, so maybe somebody will write some software and that whole personal server thing will finally take off soon.
This is dubious at best. He doesn't use it, he's not a lawyer, and his grasp on what they are doing is plain wrong. I'm not saying that privacy concerns are moot. I'm saying Wil Wheaton is your typical self-proclaimed geek these days. He shoots from the hip at anything that might trounce his sense of entitlement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entitlement is using a free service and then complaining about the rules. Especially funny considering the rant was written on Google+, which has similar terms of use.
You just made that up. I checked the dictionary.