Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Google Social Networks Yahoo! Your Rights Online

Yahoo Treading Carefully Before Exposing More Private Data 107

Posted by kdawson
from the can-you-say-buzz dept.
crimeandpunishment writes "Yahoo hopes to turn on a new sharing option without turning off its users. The company is trying to avoid the privacy backlash that has befallen Facebook and Google. It's advising its email account holders, all 280M of them, to review their privacy settings in advance of Yahoo's new features that will share users' online activities and interests with people in their address books, unless they take steps to prevent it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo Treading Carefully Before Exposing More Private Data

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb.gmail@com> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:17PM (#32447190) Homepage Journal

    STOP IT WITH THE GODDAMNED "WE'RE GONNA SHARE YOUR ONLINE LIFE" bullshit!

    Seriously. DO NOT WANT.

    Yeah, great, you can "opt out". How about just don't fucking do it in the first place, Yahoo!?

    Christ riding a sheep, this is retarded.

    • Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:21PM (#32447274)

      Indeed: I still have my psycho ex-girlfriend in my address book, and letting her know when I'm online is hardly high in my priority list.

      Address books are for addresses, not for people I want to have access to all kinds of information about my life.

      • Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:52PM (#32447848)

        I know exactly where you are. Don't worry baby, we'll be together for ever soon.

      • Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by spazdor (902907) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @01:47PM (#32448760)

        I have a really novel Idea, you guys.

        What if they implemented this as a feature you can turn on?


        • I have a really novel Idea, you guys.

          What if they implemented this as a feature you can turn on?

          Because everyone knows that most people would not turn it on.

          Facebook and Google gambled on the idea that the blow-back would be weak. They were wrong.

        • by Deffiz (1792614)
          The problem is, if you have to turn it ON, most people WON'T (who looks at the settings page that often, anyway?) - and then "THEY" (Yahoo, FaceBook, Google etc) won't get as many users as they'd like. It's all about volume - only a small percentage pays off (click on ads, the more data/people the better statistics), so you have to increase the flow-through.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by asukasoryu (1804858)
      I've never given Yahoo or Google a dime for the use of their services. They have worked quite well and I appreciate Yahoo notifying me before changing the privacy policy. Configuring my security setting does not seem like a big deal. If you don't like Yahoo's new policy, walk.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by 0123456 (636235)

        Configuring my security setting does not seem like a big deal. If you don't like Yahoo's new policy, walk.

        I just checked my yahoo email account -- which I have paid a few bucks for over the years becasue I want the POP access -- and I can't see any sign of a way to turn this crap off. Turning it on for everyone is simply insane.

        OTOH I have removed my psycho ex from the address book.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          While I haven't got the email yet, so I can't be 100% sure this is what they are talking about, look under options>>allow updates you'll see a little hyperlink that says "manage who sees my updates" and uncheck the box the hyperlink brings up. But from the looks of it they are only sharing when you add new flickr photos and comments on ratings and news, not exactly anything I would really give a shit about anybody knowing. I unchecked it just on GP anyway, but it isn't like they are gonna pass out you

      • Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb.gmail@com> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:36PM (#32447574) Homepage Journal

        I don't have a yahoo account.

        The point remains the same. Opt IN not Opt OUT.

      • Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:41PM (#32447638) Homepage

        Configuring the security settings is a big deal, as it means the whole thing is opt-out, not opt-in, which in turn means that lots of people will end up sharing data that they don't want to share. What is especially stupid is sharing data with all people in your address book, that is not the place to look for trustworthy friends, that's just a place for people you have had contact with.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by asukasoryu (1804858)
          I understand what everyone is ranting about. But this is a free service. My opinion is that people can find an alternative if they don't like Yahoo's policies. Why does everyone feel entitled? If Yahoo tells you up front what you're signing up for when you use their service, they have the right to make the default opt-out. I don't like it but I won't fault Yahoo for it.
          • by ae1294 (1547521)

            Some people pay yahoo money for email service... So they can remove the yahoo ad or have pop access...

          • by grumbel (592662)

            If Yahoo tells you up front what you're signing up for when you use their service,

            The whole point is that they didn't tell you upfront. It is a feature that they introduced to a service that has been running for years and now they take your data that was never ever meant to go public and publish it without your consent (and no, the ability to opt-out is not consent).

            That aside I have yet to see a single service that actually makes it clear what data you automatically publish online, it might be explained somewhere in the TOS or in the preferences or in the help menu or whatever, but its

        • My address book has many people in it that I wouldn't want to share my life or details of myself with. Business contacts and acquaintances don't need to know anything more about me than what I share with them in my emails or web sites. I would much prefer the OPT In setting to have to remember to use an OPT OUT setting for any account I have.
      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Configuring my security setting does not seem like a big deal.

        Since it's apparently no big deal, can you please tell me what settings I'll need to change? I can't find any indication of any security settings in all of the various Yahoo options.
        • A quick search [yahoo.com] shows you where to go [yahoo.com]. Look for "Notifications and Settings" on your "Account Information" page.
      • The only problem I have with yahoo's policy is that they should be having current users opt-in, and giving those who choose to opt-in extra benefits to entice them. All new users would have to opt-in after they agreed to the no-privacy terms. A big question I have is once the user starts sharing his information, Yahoo is providing a service for their information, which is a contract because both parties get something, now since it is a contract would yahoo be able to change the terms at their will.
      • I've never given Yahoo or Google a dime for the use of their services. They have worked quite well and I appreciate Yahoo notifying me before changing the privacy policy.

        Yahoo has worked quite well? Pah! their web interface is crap-infested, periodically stops working or pesters me to update to the latest IE version (I am using firefox on linux) and they don't give imap access! That's the very opposite of working well. I am phasing out all usage of yahoo mail, nowadays I check it maybe once a week for those few people who might still have that old address. Yahoo must rot in hell.

    • This is reminiscent of the "negative billing" scams, whee if you don't opt out, you're automatically going to be subscribed for $EXTRA_CRAP_SERVICE_I_DONT_WANT at $X_MORE_PER_MONTH.

      Seriously, Yahoo, sharing is not always a 'Good Thing' [google.com] Some things are better kept private [google.com]

      • Some things are better kept private [google.com]

        The goggles! they do nothing!

      • This is reminiscent of the "negative billing" scams, whee if you don't opt out, you're automatically going to be subscribed for $EXTRA_CRAP_SERVICE_I_DONT_WANT at $X_MORE_PER_MONTH.

        I know it was a typo but all could think when I read that is of some marketdroid somewhere telling his boss, "And if they don't opt out then whee!!!, we get their data.
        Beautiful isn't it?".

        That aside, your absolutely right. The only way I could see Yahoo (or FB, Google, MS, anyone really) doing this right is to make the feature available and then make it
        so people have to explicitly opt in.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I wish I had mod points for the parent. I know it was an emotional rant, but, seriously, it was the first thing that popped into my mind, too.

      Does every online company these days have to treat everyone like they're a 13-year-old girl? When did sharing everything with the entire world become the overriding priority for the Internet?

      • by sznupi (719324)

        Well, that's what we get for everybody pretending now and then that they're a 13-year-old girl.

      • by David Gould (4938)

        When did sharing everything with the entire world become the overriding priority for the Internet?

        When Web 2.0 was released?

    • It looks to me like this is only a problem if either you are updating your status on your yahoo profile or have linked your facebook/twitter/other social media to your yahoo account. If you have doen either of these things then you probably intended to share it right?
    • by TyFoN (12980)

      I'd prefer an opt-in rather than opt-out.
      Their problem then is that nobody will use their new web 2.0 inter person linking contact fantastico..

    • by Mattsson (105422)

      Or, at least, do it the sensible way... OPT IT! If I want it, I'll activate the damn feature!
      I really hate every damned company, organization and software-installer that graciously let people opt out of stuff that really should be an opt in option.

    • So I've long since abandoned my yahoo email address. I can't even remember my password. Does this mean that they will assume that whatever emails I still get there (all spam) are my "interests" and they will inform everyone in my address book of them?

      I can't wait until my exgirlfriends try to contact me to discuss my interest in penis enlargement devices and nigerian princes.
  • by phantomfive (622387) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:19PM (#32447226) Journal
    The right way to do it is to leave it off by default. Assuming your primary concern is to protect users' privacy. Which it isn't: they mainly want to bring this new feature (whatever it is) to the majority of people whom they think will like it, without upsetting a (vocal) minority of users who really care about privacy.
    • by Eglembor (598622)
      primary concern is money making, leaving things off be default means that users have to take the time to enable it which most wont.
    • by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:22PM (#32447290) Homepage

      I'm sure the reason for this feature has less to do with adding new functionality for users than it has to do with more advertising opportunities.

      • That's the knee-jerk assumption, isn't it. You hear 'less privacy' and automatically assume they are going to share things with advertisers.

        In this case, though, they aren't sharing with advertisers (as far as I know, they've already been doing that for a long time). They are sharing with people on your contact list. Unless you have advertisers on your contact list, you're ok (at least, as ok as you were before this change).

        Companies actually do want their customers to be happy enough to stick around
        • by MrEricSir (398214)

          Assuming a company wants to increase their revenue is a "knee-jerk assumption"?

          I'm guessing you're not a business major...

          • You didn't say, "wants to increase revenue"
            • by natehoy (1608657)

              For companies like Google and Yahoo!, who derive almost all of their money from advertising revenue, "increasing revenue" and "advertising opportunities" are exactly the same thing.

              Don't forget, with Google and Yahoo!, the people who visit their web pages and use their nifty tools are not their customers. The people who buy advertising space from them are their customers. Yahoo! makes no (or almost no) money from you. They make nearly all their money from advertisers.

              The people who visit their web pages

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Companies actually do want their customers to be happy enough to stick around

          Ah, but who is the customer? The advertisers pay them, most people with a Yahoo account don't.

          So, the user is not the customer. This is the same with Google.

          All they're doing is managing the PR of this so they can say they told their users. I've gone into my Yahoo account and disabled this, but I'll be curious to see when I actually get the email.

          • Email? Yahoo doesn't Email nobody about new features like this. What they are doing is forcing you to visit the settings page the next time you're forced to log-in. Then they get you. Do you want to disable this? Yes uncheck 30 damn different boxes and change all the settings, otherwise skip that and leave it enabled as they want.

            I don't know how long it'll be that they keep redirecting people to the settings page, probably 6 months or so before they figure everyone's had a chance to make their choice.

            • by gstoddart (321705)

              Email? Yahoo doesn't Email nobody about new features like this.

              Actually, you may be right. I just re-read TFA, and all it says it that Yahoo is "informing" people.

              It's not saying where or how, and my Yahoo page doesn't mention anything about it. I wonder if they're going to gradually add it to various users, or if some just won't get a proper notification.

    • Exactly. It's not like Facebook, where there are privacy setting which are getting shifted (and hence there will be a mapping, at least somewhat flawed in the best cases). This is new, so just start with everything turned off. If people want to be social, they can decide how "social" they want their information to be.

      Me? I don't use Yahoo, and I no longer hire anyone who uses Yahoo. Yes, "What is your favorite search engine" is actually one of my hiring questions. Yahoo employees are batting zero.

      • Me? I don't use Yahoo, and I no longer hire anyone who uses Yahoo. Yes, "What is your favorite search engine" is actually one of my hiring questions.

        Based on this question, and your sig, I hope I never run into your company. I would quit. In fact it's almost enough to start making me use Yahoo every once in a while to help avoid arrogant pricks.

        • We're actually nice folks, and everybody loves working here (though we all get frustrated occasionally). I just don't abide stupidity. I expect every employee to solve every problem on their desk, efficiently. You might think of it as an office where everyone respects everyone else's ability. Since people's lives depend on our getting the job done right, I don't allow anything less.

          • That is a good point, if you changed your sig to, "why are there so many incompetent people posing as programmers" it would be remarkably descriptive. I just don't think, "do you use Yahoo" is a good way to weed them out
      • by tomhudson (43916)

        What is your favorite search engine

        [X] I mis-trust them all equally, you insensitive clod!

        They're like Soviet Russia, while you're searching them, they're researching YOU!

    • Yes, just like with software upgrades; if you add new features, have the default to making the software as close as it was before they were added. All the current users of Yahoo are adjusted to the current settings they've made. If they add a new feature that shares more data, it should be off by default for current users, otherwise you'd break "compatibility" with them. But then the users might not "benefit" from the new feature, so marketing wants it on by default. I imagine that's the reason they default
    • Since when did they care about user privacy? The only time they pretend to care is when it starts affecting their bottom line.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:25PM (#32447346) Journal

    Yahoo's new features that will share users' online activities and interests with people in their address books

    So you can do a lot of things on Yahoo! like play chess, manage finances or e-mail. But what level of detail is going to be shared and for what possible reason?

    Let's take the most basic possibility -- similar to XBox Live -- where it says eldavojohn is playing Futurama. You only ever get a few pieces of data: my name, I'm online and my activity. But it doesn't popup with "eldavojohn has died" or "eldavojohn has reached achievement X." The specifics are hidden resulting in this only facilitating friends noticing they're online and playing together. Might work with Yahoo! Chess but it I can't see it working for finances or e-mail. "Hey, eldavojohn's online, let's read up on some mutual funds together!" Or, "eldavojohn's e-mailing, I should e-mail with him!" Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This only sense this makes is if you're one of those "microbloggers" that likes to inform everyone what you're eating and when you're urinating because you have some weird infatuation with yourself.

    The most extreme possibility is far worse. What if you knew who I was playing chess with, what stocks I was buying and who I was e-mailing. If this is the case then Yahoo! could be poised to overtake Facebook as the number one source of evidence in divorce proceedings [cnn.com]. I think anyone would agree that this extreme is highly undesirable.

    So I don't get it. Yahoo! is trying to build a better service by switching this on? How are they planning to do this? The cynic in me is defaulting to some sort of money related advertising scheme whereby you say surely whatever you share with your friends can be shared with an advertiser. There is some money in that [thestar.com]. Is that already baked into this privacy statement or will that be done behind your back or will that be a future "feature"?

    • I've had the same yahoo account for, what, 15 years? I stopped using it for anything meaningful a long time ago. The reason? My address is a common last name with a first initial. Some stupid woman thought to register it without even checking to see if it was available.

      She's interested in: hot black men and real estate. In Oakland, CA. I'm none of those things, so it's no skin off my nose. But it still provides me with some entertainment every now and again.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:27PM (#32447376)
    Why is this even needed? Seriously can anyone name a single benefit for the end user? No one cares what blogs you read, what sites you visit, etc. if someone really cared they'd just ask you.

    This is a huge privacy risk and annoyance for no benefit
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alex-tokar (1727590)
      Apparently it's more 'social'. I still don't get those 'social' networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc. They are also a huge annoyance for no benefit at all.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        I can see the point in them, you can talk to people who you haven't seen for a while. Rather than needing an MSN, AIM, etc account to IM your friends, just find them on Facebook. Its easy to find the people who you want to talk to on FB and people generally check it more often than sign into Instant Messengers.

        Plus, you have a lot more control over it than a cell phone, if you need to negotiate a meeting, its a lot better to just message them over Facebook because you can block them or delete them if ne
        • Rather than needing an MSN, AIM, etc account to IM your friends, just find them on Facebook.

          So rather than needing an MSN, AIM, etc account you need a Facebook account. That doesn't provide any real advantage.

    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:39PM (#32447612)

      Why is this even needed?

      Because Yahoo! shareholder's want their stock value to grow, and social networking is perceived as a way of acheiving that.

      Social networking features promote stickiness (which helps advertising sales) and provide something that third party developers can leverage to provide additional social apps, which then further promote stickiness, and help sell more ads.

      Seriously can anyone name a single benefit for the end user?

      More competition in the social networking space means more consumer choice in that space. If you aren't interested in social networking features, that's not a benefit to you, but social networking is a big thing in the market specifically because lots of end users are interested in those features.

  • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:34PM (#32447528) Homepage

    Instead of it being "Yahoo's new features that will share users' online activities and interests with people in their address books, unless they take steps to prevent it.", how about they make it "Yahoo's new features that will share users' online activities and interests with people in their address books, if they take steps to enable it."? Problem solved.

    Unless, of course, the problem is that Yahoo wants to do something it knows the majority of it's users don't want done, in which case I still think it's "Problem solved.", it's just not a solution Yahoo likes. But it isn't Yahoo's information Yahoo wants to share, so I don't see why what Yahoo likes should figure into it.

  • "We're going to fuck all of our users in the ass. But we want to make sure OUR asses are covered, legally speaking. So we are going to warn our users that we are going to fuck them in the ass. But we aren't going to go out of our way to warn them, because then they might not let us fuck them in the ass. We're going to secretly warn them, and then our lawyers have informed us that we can fuck our users in the ass until they ask us to stop. And then confirm that they want to stop the ass-fucking by clicking o

  • Hey, they can call it Yahoo Buzz!

    Oh wait... [yahoo.com]

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:59PM (#32447982) Homepage

    We need a general legal prohibition against implicit consent. We need to legislate that any contract provision which allows one party to modify the terms of the contract without the explicit consent of the other party is null and void. Consent cannot be given merely by continuing to use the service or pay for it. If companies want to change terms, they should have to get explicit consent, given as a transaction separate from ordinary use of the product or service. This should be an FTC rule.

    The effect is that when a company changes something, some of the customers are going to move to a competitor. That's in line with the basic principles of capitalism.

    • by tomhudson (43916)
      1. Dear Yahoo. I have a new feature on my web site. If you crawl that page, you will have opted in to my new service, which basically is 'Yahoo owes me $10k a month personal charity';
      2. Yahoo crawls page ...
      3. Dear Yahoo: Thank you for opting in to the 'Yahoo owes me $10k a month personal charity. Should you wish to cancel this service, you may opt out at any time by crawling this page (link to 'Yahoo owes me $100k a month personal charity' page). In addition, we have added the Jennifer Usher [google.com] option. Unless you o
      • Your scenario, while a good demonstration of why opt-out is bad, has absolutely no legal standing. There was no contract between you and Yahoo, so trying to enforce your $10K a month provision would be a waste of your time and money.

        What's really needed is consumer education that agreeing to a contract that states that the provider can change the terms of the contract at any time is a bad thing. The problem is that people are presented with an agreement which they're supposed to read, they check the "I ag

        • by tomhudson (43916)

          If they crawled the page without you first sending them the notification (step 1), you would be right - no contract.

          However, sending them the notification is an offer to contract. They accept the terms under the contract by performing the specific actions laid out in the contract which can only be done on my site (so it's not like sending a contract that says 'if the sun rises tomorrow, you agree to pay me money.).

          Would it hold up in court? If you took it to Delaware, probably. They side with trolls :-)

          • However, sending them the notification is an offer to contract. They accept the terms under the contract by performing the specific actions laid out in the contract which can only be done on my site (so it's not like sending a contract that says 'if the sun rises tomorrow, you agree to pay me money.).

            To demonstrate there was a contract, you would need to show that there was consideration and acceptance on their part. You would be unable to demonstrate that (1) Yahoo's crawler is able to comprehend and consider what is being offered, (2) that the crawler's continued operation on your site constitutes acceptance of a contract, and (3) that Yahoo's crawler is an authorized agent of Yahoo Inc.

            Under a consent agreement last year, Facebook only has 2 more months to get their act straight or get the plug pulled in Canada.

            Irrelevant -- that was for violations of PIPEDA, not because of any T&C listed in a contract.

            There's a reason "negative option" (aka opt-out) contracts have been banned for federally-regulated goods and services across Canada, and that the majority of Canadians also enjoy protection against it for all other goods and services - it's misleading to the point of fraud.

            Bzzt... try again.

            • by tomhudson (43916)

              Rogers hasn't changed my terms in 10 years. Same plan, same price. When it comes up for renewal, the pattern is always the same - they offer phone upgrades, service upgrades, free phones, whatever ... I already have unlimited incoming/outgoing between 6pm and 8am weekdays and all weekend, so last year they kept phoning me with different offers - I finally took free incoming calls 7 days a week.

              This year? I already got the usual "get a free phone blah blah blah ..." Not really interested. Smartphone? If

              • You can ignore their disclaimer. I do. They give me good service, I give them money. Neither side is going to rock the boat.

                It's great you're satisfied with Rogers. My intent was only to demonstrate that your claims that such language was banned is false.

                • by tomhudson (43916)
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Cable#Negative_option_billing [wikipedia.org]

                  Rogers was one of the guilty parties who started it.

                  There has been legislation at the provincial level in Quebec, Ontario, and now Manitoba that bans negative-option billing. In those provinces, Rogers has to do it differently. They can't just add the fee and let it ride. They have to get your explicit consent. Since they can't change the terms during the contract, they have to do it at renewal time. "Your contract is coming up for renew

  • I deleted my yahoo account after 12 years. That's just shady and dumb. I want to opt-in not forced to opt-out.
  • The one step easy solution to any of this "user backlash" is to make any new features "opt in" not "opt out".
    The only reason to do it as they are (opt out) is to make data accessable that users don't want to keep private. I haven't logged into my yahoo account in months, due to having forgotten my password. This means that when this change comes around, information will be made available about me that I cannot prevent and that, when I signed up, was assured would be kept private.
  • by kalirion (728907) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @01:51PM (#32448846)

    I got two yahoo accounts, and haven't received one of these "privacy minders" in either one. Maybe its because I insist on using their classic email interface instead of the web 2.0 mess?

  • Still use Yahoo!?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ATestR (1060586) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @02:05PM (#32449064) Homepage
    • Yes, I still have a Yahoo address.
    • Yes, I do check it... every month or two, to dump the SPAM.
    • No, I don't use it for real mail
    • Why do I even keep it? It is a handy, last resort mail drop, assuming GMAIL and my private mail server both die.
  • Alternatively, Yahoo could have advertised themselves as an alternative to the information-sharing sites like Facebook, Google, etc. However, since they didn't, they must have figured they still have a net gain even after the backlash.

    That said, I have already deleted my contacts.

  • They could easily avoid the whole issue by having the new feature default to "off" rather than forcing users to explicitly opt-out of sharing.

    I hate the fact that opt-out is even legal, let alone has apparently become standard acceptable practice. Anyone entrusted with your private data should not be legally able to suddenly make it publicly available without your express permission.

    Companies doing this should be deemed automatically liable for all damages and costs when they arbitrarily decide to leak priv

  • There is just one problem with this plan. It still ends with Yahoo exposing more private data.
  • I wonder how many people bother reading privacy statements anyway, I know I don't.
    Just assume fiddling with setting is futile, and whatever information you put online can never be removed and will eventually be shared with the rest of the world.

    This especially goes for free sites, since they're making money from advertising, they'll make more money from better targeted advertising, and the main reason all your contacts get to see your info is because "we're sharing your information with everybody" sounds ju

  • I use yahoo to host my spam e-mail and my personal domain e-mail. This worries me, as i have many many customers on my address book but the last thing i need is joe bob from northern missouri knowing when im online. I was thinking of switching to gmail to use with my new evo i get tomorrow, but can they host my domain?
  • Yahoo was the one company that I actually perceived as not raping my privacy at every turn. It's very disappointing to see them jump on this bandwagon.

    They clearly simply *do not get it*. The number one problem with the changes that google and facebook made was that they opted you in. It wasn't about warnings, information, etc. People who were interested could always find out the information. They didn't actually hide what they were doing. The problem was that they opted you in. Or where they presen

  • Yahoo is actually informing their users of what will happen, before it happens and yahoo is giving their users the chance to opt out before it happens. Imagine that.

    This is called common courtesy.

    It isn't new.

    From what I have read about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, he is literally an immature person, being unaware of the importance of such niceties. He is learning it now, in some stressful ways.

    My intuition about Google Buzz was that the people who made the decision were similarly immature as Zuckerberg

  • Anyone notice there isn't any anger at Twitter?

    I think that is because Twitter STARTED of 100% open and everyone signed up for Twitter with that in mind.

    People signed up for Gmail and Yahoo with the expectation of private communication. People signed up for Facebook with the expectation of semi-private and controlled information.

    People don't like the rules having changed on them mid-game.

    At least Yahoo is not starting off with a shoot first and ask if it hurts policy.

    If I was Yahoo or a similar private ser

  • I'm glad I read this thread. I just deleted my yahoo address book and my old sent emails.

    I've had that yahoo account for over 10 years so I am not going to get rid of it. I still use it, but my main email is gmail. I can get by without those stored addresses.

    I don't want the cleaning lady I emailed 3 years ago knowing that I like to read slashdot while wearing pink panties.

panic: can't find /

Working...