Companies have been shipping apps that collect email lists, GPS, records, phone info, and all manner of other personal info back to their servers. We used to call this what it is: spyware, and it was considered illegal. Usually it is claimed this information is intended to "optimize the app for your personal preferences" but "social" is the new hotness. Often when it comes down to it we find this data is more valued for building marketing profiles of individual consumers.
Comparing these companies to a cute picture of a "docile retriever" being attacked by a pit bull (as if they're the victim!) is just over the top.
I have always classified things as "spyware" not according to whether or not they asked me for permission, but rather how they use the information they acquire. Namely, spyware collects personally identifiable information and sells it to third parties.
Everyone knows that Google and Facebook use your information both to target ads for you and to improve their other services (e.g. better search results, better news feed). Do they both qualify as spyware?
If I did install an app from Google or Facebook, and it siphoned my personal data and sent it home to their servers in a way I found surprising, yes I would feel like it was spyware. Yes, this has happened to me and it made me angry.
However, I'm sure there are far more rigorous definitions of spyware and you should probably go with one of those in formal writing. I know it when I see it, but I'll let the experts define it.
You are welcome to do with your privacy whatever you damn well please. It is yours.
When someone else decides what to do with it without bothering to ask for permission, it is called an "invasion of privacy." For many people this is a bad thing. Bad enough that there are very severe legal repercussions for it dependent upon the jurisdiction and severity.
I am getting really tired of the argument that the facebook lot are being "brave" on my behalf. Or that "privacy is dead" like it was a fad to be discarded when the taste went sour.
Privacy is a right and it is to be abrogated with explicit consent only. While it is a right that is often abrogated by the actions of its possessor (wittingly or no), that is their option and choice. It is not for anyone else to decide.
Not to take the discussion totally off-topic, but if you are a portfolio company of the Crunch Fund, is this type of thing by Arrington a net positive for the portfolio co?
I suppose it could be him "getting their back", but I wonder if his invectives agst Bilton in this case or others more generally end up doing more potential harm to portfolio companies than they help.
While it was fine as a blogger for TC, I wonder if the no holds barred mantra of Arrington introduces an element of uncertainty for his cos, i.e., "what might this guy say that I may have to deal with later"?
He says that it's a stretch that Path's list of contacts will lead to "roundups and arrests" or dissidents in Egypt.
I think he's being naïve.
Path is, as he points out, quite unlikely to share its harvest with anyone but American authorities, if asked.
However, if they're that cavalier about personal data, I wonder how much attention they pay to data protection.
Someone from some bad country realises there's a sweet honeypot at Path, hacks through it without anybody knowing it, and people in Egypt disappear for a multi-year up-state tenancy.
The thing is, I'm not sure I really believe that companies want to have public dialogues about social issues. After all, the longer the dialogue persists the longer it sticks in the public consciousness that you "did a bad deed". One of the problems resulting from mob backlash is the inevitable slow death of the public apology.
A public apology from a company is currently something of a litmus test for the success of a movement. If any old Internet shit storm elicits a public apology in the future, then a public apology can no longer be a decent metric for how much has been changed by web activists. And will eventually lose all credibility.
So social media and it's virality/network effects are great when used for hype/promotion/marketing but "the mob" is "destroying our community" when the feedback is negative?
Nothing here was a "mistake". These weren't bugs that accidentally got shipped. Path was acting as spyware to push growth and Airbnb was ignoring a serious problem with their business model.
I find it funny that his dog analogy works way better another way. Path was the pit bull and "social media" kicked it in the head. Arrington is mad because he likes the pit bull and it was just a "mistake".
The whole things strikes me as "waaah, we can't fuck over users as easily anymore. I want social media to let me push my message to the little people, not have them talk about my product with each other!"
Companies have been shipping apps that collect email lists, GPS, records, phone info, and all manner of other personal info back to their servers. We used to call this what it is: spyware, and it was considered illegal. Usually it is claimed this information is intended to "optimize the app for your personal preferences" but "social" is the new hotness. Often when it comes down to it we find this data is more valued for building marketing profiles of individual consumers.
Comparing these companies to a cute picture of a "docile retriever" being attacked by a pit bull (as if they're the victim!) is just over the top.