I’m So, So Sorry. Here’s My Belly. Now Please Move On.
uncrunched.com
uncrunched.com
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.
Oh dear god, they're building.... a marketing profile! The horror, the horror. Won't somebody think of the children?
Now Path knows that I'm friends with Tom, and Tom likes Starbucks, therefore I must like Starbucks. Initiate media buys NOW!
Does anybody want access to my address book? Just let me know, I'll send it to you in a CSV. Prepare to be underwhelmed.
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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!"