Comments on: Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not Apply http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/ Where programming, the internet and social media collide. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:37:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: admin http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-233 admin Fri, 16 May 2008 18:45:07 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-233 @Kevin Interesting analogy with IMs. There is only limited interoperability by publishing APIs. XMPP is meant to provide true interop, but there does not seem to be a ton of support. However, I do not follow IM technology at that detail anymore. @Kevin
Interesting analogy with IMs. There is only limited interoperability by publishing APIs. XMPP is meant to provide true interop, but there does not seem to be a ton of support. However, I do not follow IM technology at that detail anymore.

]]> By: Kevin Heisler http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-232 Kevin Heisler Fri, 16 May 2008 18:10:19 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-232 This reminds me of the early battles over IM before Trillian and others enabled some degree of interoperability. It's clear that Facebook wants to keep their members inside their garden walls. Facebook is building a moat around its castle to keep the search giant out. Dear Google, Facebook's Just Not That Into You http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080516-110559 This reminds me of the early battles over IM before Trillian and others enabled some degree of interoperability. It’s clear that Facebook wants to keep their members inside their garden walls.

Facebook is building a moat around its castle to keep the search giant out.

Dear Google, Facebook’s Just Not That Into You
http://blog.searchenginewatch......516-110559

]]> By: admin http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-231 admin Fri, 16 May 2008 14:44:21 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-231 @Ben I commented on your blog regarding openid and oauth. Definitely the right way to go. @rloughery By paying someone, you are hopefully getting the ability to enforce the terms of service and privacy policy. The commercial service allows you to expect certain things, but it is also the nature of supply and demand that allow companies to charge for certain services. Granted there should be some level of data backup, but that may not be guaranteed. @Ben
I commented on your blog regarding openid and oauth. Definitely the right way to go.

@rloughery
By paying someone, you are hopefully getting the ability to enforce the terms of service and privacy policy. The commercial service allows you to expect certain things, but it is also the nature of supply and demand that allow companies to charge for certain services. Granted there should be some level of data backup, but that may not be guaranteed.

]]> By: rloughery http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-230 rloughery Fri, 16 May 2008 14:03:16 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-230 The only point that I would add... is that if you pay to store your data on a site, i.e. using Yahoo to host your work email domain, etc. Than shouldn't we be able to expect that by paying Yahoo (or Google) we are trusting them not do anything with our data but to make sure it is safe and backed up?? The only point that I would add… is that if you pay to store your data on a site, i.e. using Yahoo to host your work email domain, etc. Than shouldn’t we be able to expect that by paying Yahoo (or Google) we are trusting them not do anything with our data but to make sure it is safe and backed up??

]]> By: Ben Clemens http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-229 Ben Clemens Fri, 16 May 2008 13:46:06 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-229 Great post... I have a take on this as well: http://www.practicalist.com/mt/archives/000477.html "An alternate solution would be to allow people to own their personal information store, and choose to allow social network sites access to this store. Sites that behaved badly could be banned. This is much like OpenID and Oauth in concept, where one's identity is tied to a DNS-like way of creating a single namespace for unique user identifiers. It could take the form of a fancier version of an "Attention Profile Markup Language" file; a "Social Profile Markup Language" file, say. It would be stored on my own web server and under my direct control. If I wanted to share with Friendfeed or mybloglog (for example) what sites I've been posting to, saving, liking, or reading, I could allow them to access my SPML file under the condition that it be removed if I decided not to use the application any longer. (This is a geeky solution, but that's usually where these things start.) There should be a better solution to the new portability of social data than exists today, or my own understanding of my personal information will mean less and less." Great post… I have a take on this as well: http://www.practicalist.com/mt.....00477.html

“An alternate solution would be to allow people to own their personal information store, and choose to allow social network sites access to this store. Sites that behaved badly could be banned. This is much like OpenID and Oauth in concept, where one’s identity is tied to a DNS-like way of creating a single namespace for unique user identifiers. It could take the form of a fancier version of an “Attention Profile Markup Language” file; a “Social Profile Markup Language” file, say. It would be stored on my own web server and under my direct control. If I wanted to share with Friendfeed or mybloglog (for example) what sites I’ve been posting to, saving, liking, or reading, I could allow them to access my SPML file under the condition that it be removed if I decided not to use the application any longer. (This is a geeky solution, but that’s usually where these things start.) There should be a better solution to the new portability of social data than exists today, or my own understanding of my personal information will mean less and less.”

]]> By: Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not Apply | My Geek Solutions http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-228 Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not Apply | My Geek Solutions Fri, 16 May 2008 12:27:13 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-228 [...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptGiven the recent block of Google Friend Connect by Facebook, TechCrunch and Robert Scoble decided to start an argument. This is perfect fodder for this week’s bitchmeme as there are a few issues that people tend to ignore. … [...] […] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptGiven the recent block of Google Friend Connect by Facebook, TechCrunch and Robert Scoble decided to start an argument. This is perfect fodder for this week’s bitchmeme as there are a few issues that people tend to ignore. … […]

]]> By: Facebook » Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not Apply http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-227 Facebook » Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not Apply Fri, 16 May 2008 12:20:46 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-227 [...] admin wrote an interesting post today on Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not ApplyHere’s a quick excerptGiven the recent block of Google Friend Connect by Facebook, TechCrunch and Robert Scoble decided to start an argument. This is perfect fodder for this week’s bitchmeme as there are a few issues that people tend to ignore. … [...] […] admin wrote an interesting post today on Privacy and Data Ownership Do Not ApplyHere’s a quick excerptGiven the recent block of Google Friend Connect by Facebook, TechCrunch and Robert Scoble decided to start an argument. This is perfect fodder for this week’s bitchmeme as there are a few issues that people tend to ignore. … […]

]]> By: admin http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-226 admin Fri, 16 May 2008 10:56:56 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-226 @Colin That is the reason we keep seeing data portability announcements. Everyone knows they need to support it in order to stay competitive. The problem is that data portability still needs some work, specifically synchronization and privacy. We will get there, it will just take time. @Colin
That is the reason we keep seeing data portability announcements. Everyone knows they need to support it in order to stay competitive. The problem is that data portability still needs some work, specifically synchronization and privacy.

We will get there, it will just take time.

]]> By: Colin Walker http://regulargeek.com/2008/05/16/privacy-and-data-ownership-do-not-apply/#comment-225 Colin Walker Fri, 16 May 2008 10:31:56 +0000 http://regulargeek.com/?p=54#comment-225 We have become spoilt in a way with the APIs and openness of some services that it has become 'expected' that this will exist everywhere (hence the whole data portability movement) but as you rightly say, this just isn't the case. There is an element of jump on board or get left behind, however, and it is up to each service to decide how they want to go about these things but the crux is if they don't open up - at least to a degree - then the user will migrate to someone who has. We have become spoilt in a way with the APIs and openness of some services that it has become ‘expected’ that this will exist everywhere (hence the whole data portability movement) but as you rightly say, this just isn’t the case.

There is an element of jump on board or get left behind, however, and it is up to each service to decide how they want to go about these things but the crux is if they don’t open up - at least to a degree - then the user will migrate to someone who has.

]]>