Yahoo Treading Carefully Before Exposing More Private Data 107
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."
Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
I know exactly where you are. Don't worry baby, we'll be together for ever soon.
Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a really novel Idea, you guys.
What if they implemented this as a feature you can turn on?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I won't let THEM win lover.....
Pretty funny, but this is slasdot you know. Ex-girlfriend doesn't mean what you think it means.
He's never 'physically' meet this girl or for that matter even 'talked' to her on the phone or even seen her on a webcam. He's only chatted with her in IRC and email, probably for a few years, until he realized that he could never really leave his basement to meet her let alone have sex with another human being.
Plus everyone knows that she's are really he's on-line unless they are underage... There are no exceptio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so her Night Elf can dance for him when he gets the urge to "party".
You damn kids today with your pix-elated dancing elf's and party questing. Makes me sick... In my day, we didn't have massive-multi-player role playing games and we liked it that way. The smell of sweaty cheese-puff encrusted card board, the feeling of those cold hard dice in your own two hands, facing your opponent face to face like a real man, and the glory, the glory of crushing him with that perfect magic missile combo attack... You damn kids have no honor and no respect for the the rules of combat. You
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a yahoo account.
The point remains the same. Opt IN not Opt OUT.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In & Out
In & Out
That's what the Internet
Is all about
Re:Oh, FFS! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people pay yahoo money for email service... So they can remove the yahoo ad or have pop access...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why not opt in instead of opt out? (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Some things are better kept private [google.com]
The goggles! they do nothing!
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
It could be worse
'Jennifer' Usher [google.com], and Usher's journal [slashdot.org]. My own personal cyber-stalker :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The Googles, they do something! :p
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's what we get for everybody pretending now and then that they're a 13-year-old girl.
Re: (Score:2)
When did sharing everything with the entire world become the overriding priority for the Internet?
When Web 2.0 was released?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Abandoned email - opt out (Score:2)
I can't wait until my exgirlfriends try to contact me to discuss my interest in penis enlargement devices and nigerian princes.
The right way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The right way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a company wants to increase their revenue is a "knee-jerk assumption"?
I'm guessing you're not a business major...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We have a winner! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re:The right way to do it: off by default (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm Not Clear on What Will Be Shared (Score:5, Insightful)
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 know what will be shared (Score:2)
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.
Why is this needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a huge privacy risk and annoyance for no benefit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why is this needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
How about they do it the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
What they really are saying (Score:2)
"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
Yahoo Buzz (Score:2)
Hey, they can call it Yahoo Buzz!
Oh wait... [yahoo.com]
A legal prohibition against implicit consent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 :-)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's not "free". I'm paying them, just not in money.
Yahoo! and Google both offer me services in return for my divulging information which is to be used for specific purposes, which are laid out in the user agreement.
If they want to change that agreement, the changes should be opt-in, and if I choose not to opt in it's acceptable to me that they disable or delete my account. It is NOT acceptable to me that inaction on my part will result in divulging information that was previously covered under a priv
There... done. (Score:1)
Why is it opt out? (Score:1)
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.
I didn't get any notification about it. (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
I use the 2.0 email (which isn't that bad, actually) and I haven't received one either.
Still use Yahoo!?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly a calculated risk. (Score:1)
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.
whole problem could be avoided easily (Score:2)
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's just one problem... (Score:2)
I see singing up as opting in (Score:1)
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
What now? (Score:1)
Very Disappointing (Score:2)
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
Not a new concept: informed consent (Score:2)
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
Why people are NOT pissed at Twitter. (Score:2)
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
Glad I read this: I deleted my address book (Score:2)
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.