You could've explained that without the above addition.Also, why address me and not Wrecker as he made the first query...?
Dear me your sensitive.
I quoted you as you wondered too.
Dear me your sensitive.
My sensitive what...? You appear to have cut off mid sentence. 😉
Ooops!
Power to the People.Not hard to work out really.
I got the gist but it's pretty out of context considering my brief response to a blunt (and pretty poor) piece of public relations from spotify which was pretty much "don't like it, piss off" a response of "ok no probs" was fairly measured IMHO.
It wasn't meant it that way wrecker it was meant in giving it to the man, you know showing Spotify where to go by not subscribing or cancelling as some have suggested.
Yeh, I got that. It was a piss take (which I don't mind at all). It was just very strangely aimed considering the brief, non outraged post. As a value calculation (for me) it doesn't add up. No big deal, just deleted.
Good grief
And does the use of "sheeple" not apply the equivalent of Godwin?
It was just very strangely aimed considering the brief, non outraged post.
I really think you're looking too much into it.
I think I am. I just wondered if there was a deeper meaning that I didn't get.
No and sorry if it offended you it wasn't my intention.
The problem we have is that giving corporations access to a lot of information is useful; it allows them to do really cool things such as suggest us music (spotfiy) or give us money off the brand of butter we by most often (clubcard). But in giving them all this information we give them the information required to do something sinister. There doesn't seem to be suficient protection in law to stop people doing the sinister things or punish them when they do.
I suspect this is because we can't agree where the line between sinister and cool is. For some people Facebook sugesting friends to you based on trolling through people's phone books to spot connnections is cool to others it's sinister. But if facebook sold that phone number database it would definitely be not cool, or would it, what if they sold it to someone who would do cool rather than sinister things.
Basically with great power comes great responsibility.
No offense taken!
No offense taken!
[img] 
[/img]
I will laugh, and laugh, and laugh, at anyone saying "If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
[i]I will laugh, and laugh, and laugh[/i]
Do it in private, or you might look a bit, you know.. mental.
Yeah, but I can see why they need it. Spotify clearly don't need it.
How about if the code looks something like this:
10 "Mrtimidwheeler.paranoid@hotmail.com" has spotify account move to 20 else move to 50.
20 crossreference music playlists
30 sugest to both what the other has listened to but they have not
40 inform relatives that he thinks they're "dippy" [i]as lonely people listen to more music to increace market share.[/i]
50 move to next e-mail address
[quote> http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/21/9186365/spotify-privacy-policy-app-permissions
Nothing that we didn't already know or already be actioning. What the article doesn't say is that "with your permission" is a condition of using the service.
So we're back to square one, if you don't like this permission, don't download the app.
I'm happy with that, but I'm sure there's plenty out there who are not aware.
Mrstimidwheeler.patronised@Donthaveaspotifyaccount.co.uk, still doesn't feel that Spotify have any right to have my email address.
I think you are a little naive. If it really is that innocent then why not make it easy for people to opt out.
I think you are a little naive. If it really is that innocent then why not make it easy for people to opt out.
The coding would be too complicated for your average app writer to get their head around. 😆
If Spotify has innocuous or (depressingly this seems unlikely) genuinely customer-focused reasons for gathering this information, why don't they specify them in their privacy policy? Instead of saying "we have the right to track your location and movements", they could say "we have the right to track your location and movements in order to suggest geographically-relevant and activity-relevant music to you, but we will not use this information for any other purposes".
That may produce a longer privacy policy and take a tiny bit more time to write (compared to the development time of the technologies required) but it would at least help reduce the feeling that they're scraping all the data they can get and using it in any way they reckon might make them a fast buck.
If it really is that innocent then why not make it easy for people to opt out
It is easy to opt out. You have to accept the Ts&Cs but the Ts&Cs aren't asking for permision. They are saying "if you give us permission then we will use your stuff in ways outlined here". In iOS you will still need to actually allow Spotify to access your stuff and AFAIK Android is the same.
So you can sign the Ts&Cs which gives Spoify permission to use your data, but then not give them that data.
The issue isn't that Spotify have some sinister agenda, or even that they might sell data. It's that startups and social networks repeatedly pile up vast amounts of private data while demonstrating an extremely blasé attitude toward privacy and what happens to that data in the future.
Facebook and Uber have been some of the biggest offenders so far. Uber (at least in the past) have let any employee access customer data and have broadcast certain people's locations in realtime at public events. Facebook, despite having to be audited over privacy by the US government every year until sometime in the 2020's, because of how badly they've abused confidential user information before, are still ultimately in the business of selling that data to other people and forever poking at the boundaries of what's legal.
Loads of other startups are piling up the data with little regard for edge cases. Outside of startups, there are (for instance) free torch apps on Google Play that ask for a ridiculous number of permissions during installation, then harvest data and pass it on to the developer for sale. All of these things expose not only your own data, but anyone's data you happen to have a copy of.
These things aren't a massive a threat at all for most of us, and probably won't become so, but the things they do with data can become a massive threat to vulnerable people. If you think for a second you, one of your friends or family couldn't become vulnerable or have a need for privacy within the course of a few days or hours, then you're naïve at best.
Ah, looks like a climb down/'what we really meant was blog;
[i]A blog post by Spotify CEO Daniel Ek[/i]
[url= https://news.spotify.com/us/2015/08/21/sorry-2/ ]https://news.spotify.com/us/2015/08/21/sorry-2/[/url]
It's all a bit
[img] 
[/img]
Badly worded press releases like the original one can cost companies dear. I deleted spotify today, I wonder how many others did?
Kudos to the CEO for picking it up, I wonder how the meeting went with the author of the original "If you don’t agree with the terms of this Privacy Policy, then please don’t use the Service" person?
I think you are a little naive. If it really is that innocent then why not make it easy for people to opt out.
When it goes live, as it's not yet, they may just have that option.
I may be missing the point entirely here, but simply having a phone with contacts, pictures, whatever in it, means somebody out there has access to your movements and anything you've got on your phone. Why are people suddenly up in arms about this? It seems to be the trade off for having a super duper smart phone with all kinds of fancy apps.
If you're that much of a para wreck that this concerns you then you probably need to regress a bit, technology wise.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
If you're that much of a para wreck that this concerns you then you probably need to regress a bit, technology wise.
What makes you think that people who don't want their address books rifled through or their photos accessed are para wrecks?
What makes you think that people who don't want their address books rifled through or their photos accessed are para wrecks?
Because its all floating about out there anyway. If it bothers you that much revert back to a pen and a physical address book
Because its all floating about out there anyway. If it bothers you that much revert back to a pen and a physical address book
That's excellent. And how do you deal with you low self esteem?
Welcome to the future. It's big data init. Its just going to get bigger and more pervasive as the years go by. About 99.9? of people don't even know it happens. Just have a look at all the permissions the new windows 10 has switched on by defaut now...you either go with the flow and accept it, and hope another Hitler doesn't come to power 😆 or take yourself offline. No real other alternative. Pissing against the wind would be more successful.
I may be missing the point entirely here, but simply having a phone with contacts, pictures, whatever in it, means somebody out there has access to your movements and anything you've got on your phone.
Phone companies and governments aren't run by a bunch of indiscreet rich kids who think office slides are the shit.
Spotify have apologised....
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for all the panic, but that would have [i]totally violated their privacy[/i] 😀
If you're that much of a para wreck that this concerns you then you probably need to regress a bit, technology wise.
There may just be a happy medium where I can use my phone AND keep my information confidential and not have to use carrier pigeons and invisible ink.
(sorry, haven't read the intermediate stuff, just replying to a point)
What exactly do you think your Tesco clubcard actually does?
I don't have one. And, though trite, that's an important difference: I can walk into Tesco and buy a tin of beans and walk out again without permitting them to know my exact location at the point in time at which I consume the beans. And without letting them have access to photos of, say, my kids in the bath.
Whereas with most apps I can't do that. I don't get the choice to say "actually, all I want is a tin of beans, so you don't need access to all my stuff."
And even if I did have a Clubcard, as far as I'm aware it'd only capture information about what I purchased, from where, and when. Obviously Tesco would have my address and some other details so all this information could be used to build general pictures of its consumer base, as well as specific ones about my purchasing patterns, but they wouldn't be able to know where I was, or whom I associated with, or what I took photos of.
And the contacts access is super powerful if you want to do some neat analysis. Once you've got that, you can start building some interesting global social networks. Throw virtually any metadata on top of that and you can start doing some really fun things. Location data is pretty high on the fun list.
Now, of course, Spotify is probably just doing benign stuff. But people get hacked. And whatever you think of stuff that appears on Wikileaks, it's not hard to see that some entities are going to be keen to get their hands on this sort of data (whether they [i]can[/i] or [i]will[/i] are of course different questions). Plus it just adds to the whole idea that to consume digital stuff you need to expose a whole raft of personal information. I'm sure we've all installed an app at some time where we've thought, "I wonder why it needs to access that?—ah, what the hell". It's a nice little softener for the one time you install an app that [i]does[/i] do something you'd rather it didn't.
So, no, I've never really wondered what my non-existent Clubcard does, because it doesn't know where I am, can't see my photos, doesn't have internet access, and knows nothing of my social network. The data isn't of much interest to anyone other than Tesco, and even Tesco let me use their services without having one.
A phone and its apps, though, are [i]quite[/i] a different matter.
You can tell an awful lot about people from their shopping habits:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
Yeah, indeed. Now imagine that the same entity had access to contact information and photos. Might be in with a decent shout of finding the father. Access to sufficient location data and call records and it's probably a shoo-in. Data's pretty handy stuff.
Yep. Connections and patterns reveal all kinds of stuff about us, it's not just letting something access your phone number, contacts or address.
It's the kind of thing that can easily **** over someone who, say, has a secret to keep from their extremely prejudiced family members, or lives in a country where being gay provokes a death penalty (The Ashley Madison hack has exposed someone to precisely this risk; cheating isn't the only reason people used a site that promised security and discretion), or people who've had a stalker and don't want to be online with their real name, etc. We should demand better for the sake of those people, but instead, it's a bunch of "I don't personally feel at risk so I don't see the issue with handing mine and others personal data over to some bunch of dickheads running a startup".
