91–100 of 140 posts
it's possible a more sophisticated "privacy market" could solve these issues.
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…
Wil's point about companies using information about you that you did not provide, and in fact have no relationship with, business or otherwise, is a more interesting one. For some people, contact information is a very sensitive matter, and celebrities are the uninteresting case, compared to those being stalked, witness protection, etc. How are we going to deal with this? Especially in light of the fact that the data…
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…
But if you're going to change the rules once you have millions of users, a prominent notification as opposed to inserting language into the middle of a terms of use policy would seem to make sense. I think Instagram users would be much more willing to listen if the reason and justification for this policy shift were clearly explained and users clearly notified.
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?
You should only be afraid of services that have to apparent revenue model, because you've got no idea what they're doing with your data. When the use of your data is clear and well known, you can make an informed decision on whether or not to use the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time to file "entitlement" alongside "hipster" as words that no longer mean anything.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wil's point about companies using information about you that you did not provide, and in fact have no relationship with, business or otherwise, is a more interesting one. For some people, contact information is a very sensitive matter, and celebrities are the uninteresting case, compared to those being stalked, witness protection, etc. How are we going to deal with this? Especially in light of the fact that the data…
Maybe not DRM as DRM, but sure you can protect such things. Just not necessarily with systems in place currently. Conceptually simple solution: unique tokens for your phone / address that a routing system directs to you. Your info is never even in the hands of e.g. someone you buy from, and you can simply revoke the token to prevent any and all spam from now until forever, regardless of what they do with it.
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 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> c) NOT to behave like this wont be reverted pronto. Like Facebook has been stifled by users' opinions before.
Yes, exactly like that. CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. 'The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised." http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/18/1310239/facebook-rev... New to the interwebs?