Why Color is overrated
bogdanbocse.com
bogdanbocse.com
Secondly, that's not a one in a million chance. Unless his wife is a god damn social media photo site addict, it's more like a zero chance. Why would she stumble on that picture, ever? Unless, perhaps, she goes to the same bar and looks through the hundreds of pictures taken there. But now you're not talking random chance, you're talking determined digging (or complete and utter stupidity on the part of the cheating husband).
Thirdly, I hardly know anyone who's been talking about color.com anyway. That's probably the biggest problem they have, rather than the rare occasion when someone may be caught out in the background of a photo.
What privacy problem does color.com have that doesn't apply to flickr.com?
Flickr's value proposition is interestingness, not total coverage. Further, Flickr has three privacy layers, resulting in most night-on-the-town scenarios being Friends-only.
He made this point with his odds argument. Odds on Flickr might be one in a million, but Color wants users to take a million photos, making the odds one in one.
Is this a privacy issue? Strictly speaking, I don't think it is any less legal than flickr (but IANAL). But it definitely pushes the boundaries when it comes to thinking about your own personal privacy.
The only way Color makes things worse for James is if his wife knew he was at said bar on a previous night (i.e. she can't just show up in person) and sifts through those images. Or if Color employs amazing facial recognition and data aggregation to provide his wife a constant stream of James pictures.
I thought this was going to be about Hot Young Things inadvertently sharing nip slips with nearby Creepy Old Guys.