Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Policies Heading Downhill
ipfwadm writes: "There's a good article in the NY Times about various internet companies changing their privacy policies to allow the selling of users' information to marketers. The article mentions Yahoo and how they changed everyone's marketing preferences recently, among other companies (including everyone's favorite, Microsoft)." We already did a story on Yahoo's changes, but this one is notable because Yahoo's former vice president for direct marketing blasts the changed policy. And LorenzoV submitted a story from Wired about TrustE failing to censure Yahoo over their changes. Again.
Read it before you accept it.
The point is that even if you do read the privacy policy thoroughly sites have a habit of later changing them to whatever they like. Oh well - c'est la vie.
Video Game cheats, hints a
"We value our customers' privacy," said Brian Gluth, a senior product manager at MSN, "and we have never changed a customer's preference of opt-in or opt-out, like some of our competitors have done."
Well, I'd have to agree that this statement is strictly true. They never gave users the opportunity to opt-out and assumed opt-in, and never gave the users operable means to change their preferences. With users' recorded preferences agreeing with what Microsoft prefers, there was no need to make changes to users' preferences. QED.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Use the above link to delete your Yahoo account. It's the Internet folks. There are alternatives. There are always alternatives.
After the previous story about Yahoo "resetting" (that is, altering without permission) user settings, I sent a return-receipt letter terminating all business with Yahoo, instructing Yahoo never to send me any email, and telling Yahoo they would be charged for sending email.
Yahoo responded by sending me email from "Customer Care"! Idiots. They don't care, and I'm not a customer now. How many neurons does it take to figure out that you don't respond to a letter saying not to send email by sending email?Why do corporations think they have a right to do anything they want, even with other people's property?
when she says,
"I've also been disappointed in consumers," she said, "in that they've not been proactive in protecting their own data. You do a survey and consumers say they are very concerned about their privacy. Then you offer them a discount on a book and they'll tell you everything."
and it's true.
People get all worked up over what these companies do- then sign up for the free trip contest that no one will win.
People should disclose less personally. They should encrypt more.
How many average internet users today would be able to tell where there personal information had been leaked? Not many, because they give it out in so many place.
If you only tell one person a secret. And it gets back to you that everyone knows-- then you know who squealed.
Let's not take the easy route and dump all the blame in one place.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It's the anti-marketing these guys are doing. At least Dilbert's boss was clearly stupid. Nowadays what we have? We have companies that we used to trust selling not only our digital personas, but our real ones, by telephone and home address.
/.'ers can't stand to this, but where the \. are?
None could predict that corporations would be our parents, by giving us thousands of older brothers that not only watch you, but commercially punish a trusted relationship.
The internet was meant to be the ultimate anonymous reduct of our souls, and instead, for the hundreds of millions of users, has become a place where you pray for an digital communication medium (for example: email) where you won't be bothered.
I know
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
From the interview:
"To the extent possible, you would like companies to honor the preferences that were previously set by the users. But on the other hand, we don't want to tell companies they can't do something when their business strategy changes. We have to balance those things."
From their site:
"TRUSTe's Privacy Seal: When you see the TRUSTe seal, you can be assured that you have full control over the uses of your personal information to protect your privacy."
Does anyone else find this amusing?
Please posters, spend the 30 extra seconds needed to get the no registration link which is ALWAYS at Yahoo. It is ironic that, on a story about privacy and access to your information, the poster doesn't seem to care at all about NYT stroing his information and reading preferences.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt / 0020411/tc_nyt/seeking_profits__internet_companies _alter_privacy_policy
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
If a company changes its policies in this way... dump 'em.
That's what I did with the minute I heard about Yahoo!'s change of policy. I immediately turned off their &@^% preferences, and changed all of the references for email and such to something fictitious. Only used them for web mail anyway. Instead, I'm using my private domain server, even if it costs more.
I suspect that Yahoo! and others of its ilk won't much care that I don't use their service. There are enough computer-neophytes out there who don't know enough to turn off the spam preferences, much less understand their loss of privacy.
I NEVER read my Bulk Mail folder (since it is ALL spam), so I missed this message from Yahoo on the privacy change. Going into my Bulk Mail folder now I see it. Sorta of a backhanded tactic though, to put the message somewhere no one will read it.
Let me get this straight -- Truste wants companies to follow privacy policies (which the companies themselves until they don't want to follow them anymore . . .
All that Truste ever really did was claim to police how well these companies disclosed and followed their own policies -- not dictate what their policies would be. IIRC, there already are laws about false advertising and misleading business practices. So, what is Truste and their "seal" besides a public relations exercise?
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. Most people never know which company sold the name and telephone number that got them that annoying telemarketing call at dinner. Or which Web firm sold off the e-mail address that got them that spam. So they never make the connection between giving up personal information to (whatever) company and the torrent of junk mail, calls and spam.
Without knowing exactly who is giving up what to whom, people don't know what companies to stop patronizing, in protest of their lousy privacy policies.
If you are the master of your own domain (ahem...), don't hesitate to create a new e-mai alias for each account you create with another Web site. (e.g. yahoo@yourdomain.com, amazon@yourdomain.com, etc.) That way, you at least can track who's selling e-mail addresses, and spread the word.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
We all know of the New York Times (idiot register required) and such stff. There's also the Yahoo register, and about every other service that requres email addresses, authorization that demands your name, home adress, and sometimes asks how much you make.
Well, after about the.. well, the second time, I started punching in totally random garbage. I did this every time I needed something on that site. So what, it took a minute, but they didn't get anything in return (my data is more important than an article in the NYT). Now, as a question to slashdot, how many 'Fake' nyms do you make for idiotic register only accounts?
Even at Krogers (A national grocery chain), they and many others like it have the 'Kroger super cheap recipt card' The purpose for thr consumer (cattle) is a coupon without the scraps of paper. Kroger, and others with the same plan, use this as a way to log exactly what each person buys. Whenever I go in and purchase stuff, I demand that I have the rebate price without a card. If they force a 'super card' on me, I scribble on the carbon paper, as to make it unusable, then throw it on the floor as I walk out. They get the message.
The attempt to screw me, I take them just as bad... Now be a nice consumer and bend over.
Seems kind of desperate when I company does something like this. It is a pretty good sign that its business model does not hold what the company promised their investors.
Take Yahoo! for instance, who recently reported a loss of $50M+ for the first quarter this fiscal year. They probably weighed the bad-will and complaints of changing their marketing policy against a projected short-term income for selling these addresses. Whatever $ figure they came up with as a result of resetting it's users settings , it's probably too high.
The strange thing is that when these policies change for the worse, people not only get upset, but they also a) become more reluctant to give accurate information when signing up b) opt-out as soon as possible. Apart from being able to sell a few more - lower quality - addresses, nothing is gained. The downside is that the intended audience for the advertising emails is less likely than before to read the emails, and also the accuracy of any demographics of the audience.
I think advertisers will realize sooner than later that the apparently millions of new Yahoo! customers were people that already opted out of advertising email, and therefore are a dead market not worth the new and higher price that Yahoo! demands
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I like to use "Ralph Poohead". Or when they offer a free trial issue with an opt-out subscription to follow, I send it to Wrigley Field in Chicago and use the name "Teebone Schmidt".
I'm really upset about all these "your rights online" issues -- not because it's bad reporting (despite what you trolls like to say,) but because I'm getting desensitized to it.
In the net's infancy, the community attacked ANY company who breached our trust or good will. A lot of dot-bombs can attest to that. As we watch the internet grow, however, these violations have become so mainstream that only the truly offensive ones catch our attention. Even at that, the definition of "offensive" changes every day.
A few years ago, Yahoo! couldn't have dreamed of pulling a stunt like they just did. The backlash would have crippled, and possibly bankrupted them. Today, though, it's little more than an annoyance to us and a non-issue to newbies.
Kazaa got removed from download.com, but will still probably make millions from their scam. Companies like Gator will continue to abuse their market share. As the internet matures -- and we get even more desensitized -- companies will do worse, and we'll accept it.
It all goes downhill from first post
There was a recent slashdot article about how Amazon reset everybody's marketing preferences. After reading this article I went to amazon and reset them all to "don't send me anything unless it's an order confirmation". Just a few days ago I recieved an e-mail from them selling stuff. I followed the unsubscribe instructions and found that, as I thought, was set not to recieve it. I set myself not to receieve it again. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a computer error or something. It hasn't happened again since. It's just kind of annoying that even though I check the box that says don't send me crap ever, that they can reset it at will. So I either keep visiting their site and changing it back (and when I visit their site they sell me stuff/make money). Or I get stuff in my e-mail (which sells me stuff and makes them money). Maybe next time I get something from someone I told not to send me things I'll sue. Just maybe.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
So what? They'll find that yet another 45-years old woman from Afganistan with a $5/mo household income is interested to see their security policy...
-- No sig today
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Truste, a nonprofit group financed by Internet companies that creates standards for privacy policies, agreed to endorse Yahoo's move after an extended discussion with the company. "I would not call what Yahoo did `best practices,' " said Fran Maier, the group's executive director. "To the extent possible, you would like companies to honor the preferences that were previously set by the users. But on the other hand, we don't want to tell companies they can't do something when their business strategy changes. We have to balance those things."
So basically Maier admitted: they do nothing. Fine. Then they should get no news coverage, and not be used as a smokescreen by these fuckers.
sulli
RTFJ.
As soon as I heard that Yahoo had changed all our privacy settings, I changed mine back, turning off the Yahoo Delivers option. Meanwhile, Yahoo announced that POP access would no longer be available after 4/24 unless you sign up for premium services for $30/year. So a few days ago I fired up the old mail client and tried to download the 5 megs of email I have on Yahoo to my local machine. Oops, invalid user name/password. That makes no sense.
I emailed Yahoo, and after a few back and forths, they finally told me that the only way to get POP access (until the 24th when I would have to start paying) is to sign up for Yahoo Delivers! Well, I want my mail, so I paid the blackmail, signed up for Yahoo Delivers Spam, and sure enough, I was then able to log into the POP server.
I don't fault them for wanting to charge for POP access - they've got to make a buck. But to force me to expose myself to spam in order to gain control over my own email is just not right. This was not part of the deal when I signed up, and is a pretty slimy way to do business.
After I finish downloading, I'll be shopping for a new email provider.
No sig? Sigh...
I'm not sure how many yahoo people have started to receive phone spam, but even though I am on the oregon no-call, I've received 6 calls asking for the bullshit "name" on my yahoo account. Coincidence? Nah.
:)
I've reported this to the abuse list, which probably means these companies will end up paying some sort of fine, which probably means that they will be reluctant to do business with yahoo in the future. I say going after the demand is the best way to approach things, as yahoo etc, can change the user agreement pretty much at will, as is shown - is it dirty? ya - low down and fucking annoying, yup, but you did agree to the terms which include that they can change the terms at any time. Besides, the service is free, so as pissed as I am, I do have to aknowledge that they might as well make some money.
Also, I find filtering anything with the word "unsubscribe" in it to trash works pretty well
Long live banner ad filters.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Yes, I know this is heresy on the internet even now, but you need money, and I have money, so maybe we can make a deal. (and yes, I know this is slashdot and not yahoo, but perhaps a yahoo or other provider employee will read it.)
Here is what I have with Yahoo:
A Yahoo Mail account
Several Yahoo Groups that I administer
A "My Yahoo" page with various crap
I would be willing to pay:
$5/month for each Group I administer to make it 100% ad-free
$5/month for my Yahoo Mail account to make it 100% ad-free
Some reasonable, flat monthly rate amount to make all my yahoo browsing and usage 100% spam and ad-free
some modicum of service standards (notably on groups, which is quite unreliable at present)
certified, and not by TrustE, "we will never spam you ever" privacy
I have my credit card right here, yahoo. I bet many other users would pay for no ads. Get with the program!
sulli
RTFJ.
I wonder about the value of user-information on the internet. I find it hard to believe that 20% of the people in the world are named John Doe, have a phone number with more than six 5's in it, have an email address blow_me@nomail.com, and live in quiet town of Schenectady, NY in zip code 12345.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
I do hope that companies like Yahoo! realise that changing a privacy policy without prior consent of the existing users can get them banned from doing business in the EU?
You see, we actually have laws that are meant to stop unscrupulous marketers selling our data to all and sundry without our informed prior consent, and you know what? They are actually enforced, to the point of the EU threatening a trade war with the US over them.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I think it is okay for a company to change their mind on their business practices if they want. That is the way the world works, things change.
The problem that I see is, once I give my info to a company (such as Yahoo) because I agree with their privacy policy, if they change their privacy policy into something I don't like, I can't un-give them my info. Yes, I can probably remove it from their web form, but I really doubt that they don't have it on tape somewhere. Once you break the egg, you can't put it back together. Once a company gets your info, they have it. I find it hard to believe that if they are willing to change their policy and start spamming or selling info, they are trustworthy enough to only spam or sell info based on stuff the got after they change the policy. Maybe I am too cynical.
I guess the solution to this is to not give it out in the first place. You live and learn.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
"Effective April 24, 2002, Yahoo! Mail will no longer provide free POP3 Access or Auto Mail Forwarding to Yahoo! Delivers subscribers."
p.p.s. Yahoo webspaces is (or was, last time I checked) available at ftp.geocities.com, for full FTP access.
"Beginning April 2, 2002, we will no longer provide FTP access as part of our free home page service."
Yahoo was one of the first big companies on the web, and gave out free email, clubs, and chatrooms before most of us even knew what they were. Yahoo may not be the same now, but let's not forget their place in the history of the internet.
Yeah, Yahoo should be history after this...
"We have reset your marketing preferences and, unless you decide to change these preferences, you may begin receiving marketing messages from Yahoo! about ways to enhance your Yahoo! experience, including special offers and new features."
I think this issue nicely points out the fact that a privacy policy is fundamentally meaningless unless it restricts the data collector's ability to:
e.g. "We won't sell your data without 30 days notice, at which point your only recourse is to stop giving us new data."
Fuseboy
The TrustE program is rooted in the ideology of anarcho-Capitalism, the idea that a free society can come about through the abolition of all government, and the aggressive privatization of everything, including courts and militaries. (Less aggressive Libertarians are generally minarchist, and believe that it's probably best to let government have the courts and the military, in order to best protect property.)
The anarcho-capitalist argument usually goes something like that: Government intervention is not only bad for business (and thus, you and me), but it's also immoral. But people do not need government to be safe; They can rely on the market for protection. It is beneficial to the market to protect you, since there is obviously a demand for protection.
There are many problems with these notions, but anarcho-Capitalists, generally intelligent people have an affinity for axiomatic theories (in this cased, based in the notion of contracts).
How does the theory fail? It's not too difficult to find out, if you aren't an anarcho-capitalist yourself. All you need to do is look at a failing of the market to protect people, and trace it to its source.
For example, Yahoo just recently changed their privacy policy, for the worst. Let's accept as fact that the majority of people don't like this, since its hit Slashdot and most people are bitter about it. How did Yahoo do that? According to the New York Times article, they have played on the exact lettering of their contract. Yahoo pledged that it would not email its users, but did they say they would not telephone? No, they never said they would not do that.
How has anarcho-capitalism failed here? Anarcho-capitalists would have said that we are kept safe by the competition of privacy policies. There would have been, say, 5 yahoo's, all slightly different, and one would have had a better privacy policy. I don't know how the anarcho-capitalist would respond to the complaint that we want to use services, not read contracts and theorize about them all day (for example, "They say they won't contact me by email, but they might call me by telephone! I better inform Yahoo that their contract needs work before I'm willing to sign it..!").
Note Esther Dyson's complaint, supporting this notion:
In other words, it's our fault, because we don't think about contracts in full. The problem is that contracts do not accurately reflect what we want. We are irrational beings, which chops at the root of anarcho-capitalist thinking. But rather than ammend their philosophy to take into account consumer behavior (which companies are eager to take advantage of; Look at any college textbook on the subject), they insist that consumer behavior is wrong, and that absolute contract-based theory is right.
Going back to Anarcho-capitalists believing in a competition of privacy policies: Unfortunately, there are not 5 yahoo's. (If there are, we don't know about it.) Why is that? That's probably very complicated to answer, but my guess is that it has to do with branding. And when you have advertising/branding strategies in place to get people to use your business, there is almost always room for only 1, 2, maybe 3 companies in people's heads. But very rarely do I ever see the role of advertising and people's ability to recall brands appearing in anarcho-capitalist literature. In anarcho-capitalist literature, we are all perfectly rational beings who have all the time in the world to investigate every contract and extrapolate it's meaning in purely legalistic terms.
--Wired (Notice the implicit necessity for competition, and the assumed assumption of TrustE actually working.)
But we're not even at the main story here, which is about TrustE. TrustE is born almost completely out of anarcho-capitalist theory. Indeed, when I worked at a dot-com (now failed), the owner of the company (and big-time Madrona investor) told us how excited he was to participate in TrustE, which was going to show to the world how anarcho-capitalist protections work for everybody. What is the program?
TrustE fills the role in the anarcho-capitalist dream of a market response to the demand for safety. It works like this: Companies pay TrustE in order to have a seal that proves that they are going to play nice. TrustE in turn watches over the company, and makes sure that they are doing right by what they said they would do. The moment the company tries to do anything wrong, TrustE slaps them by removing their brand from the Company.
Systems like these are proposed by anarcho-capitalists in order to remove the entire government. For example: The justice system. There would be a number of competing courts, and the ones with a good reputation and contract would be utilized by people to try their cases. The military and police forces- if one wasn't nice to people, we'll all just hire another to protect us. To be fair, Libertarians don't go quite as far as the anarcho-Capitalists in this respect, the Libertarians just want to have no government/military regulation except of military force. (I find it likely though, that the government would act in the interest of the corporate interests, and not in the public interests; It is said that "Property is 9/10's of the Law". Undoubtably, people crushed by non-violent anarcho-capitalist market rule would want to / need to violate some property laws, and thus have the weight of the establishment upon them, in full military force.)
How do these systems fail? In precisely the ways that critics say that they will fail. Obviously TrustE wants people's money, so it is already biased to certify companies. I suspect that more importantly, it wants to be seen as actually meaning something (lest everyone stop using them), and thus it doesn't want to de-list its most famous clients. Should Yahoo be delisted, Amazon might feel like delisting. Should the big names fall, everyone would fall.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to learn this method. It's not based in axiomatic derivation, which is clean, but rather, in analysis of real world situations. Anarcho-capitalists extrapolate all kinds of things from their initial set of perfectly rational contract-analyzing citizens. Unfortunately, when we look at real world systems, we find that anarcho-capitalist theory has no value.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to think about this very carefully, and act accordingly. Again, in brief, the method is this: Take a limited set of clear ideas. Extrapolate from them. Then check those ideas against reality around you. How do the ideas fail? Is it reasonable to expect that the failing will reoccur, or is this just a fluke? If they will reoccur, revise the ideas to match reality.
In closing, some choice quotes:
--MetroActive on Esther Dyson
(Esther Dyson, we can at least vote against the government. How will we protect ourselves from companies..? Dollar votes have proven not to work, the companies research our behaviors too well. You have seen yourself that it does not work. Shall we just be screwed; Are we getting our just deserts for being human?)
Another interesting quote is on the TrustE web page:
It's interesting to study where the words come from. Unfortunately, I won't take the time to back up this claim, but "...independent, third-party would hear and respond to their complaints and resolve their disputes." comes straight out of the anarcho-capitalist literature on how to run a justice system by third-party companies, without a government..!
Well, young John Gaults of the world, TrustE has failed. This is a great opportunity for you to come forward with your own competing TrustE systems that will have better morals, and certify to the world the successes of your anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
Nothing is free, period. If you don't pay one way you will pay another; why this is anything other than totally obvious beats the hell out of me. I mean if you sign up for a prize drawing for car or boat etc you KNOW your name is going on a solicitation list, what the heck does anyone expect with a 'free' email acount/web hosting/mailserver?
Now the part about AOL selling, excuse me, 'renting' customer data crackes me up, after all these people are paying customers, but then somehow not too terribly suprising.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
fair enough, they're gonna cut-off POP access to yahoo mail accounts. Not before time; I get 97 spam emails per week and exactly no real emails.
Being one of the first to sign up when yahoo started (owhite@yahoo.com) my email gets a lot of dictionary-attack spam emails, so I've had to stop checking it in the last year anyway. Yahoo are going to stop me reading it from KMail, do I care? No.
Pity though, as I still use Y!chat, Y!Messenger (another AIM) and clubs.yahoo.com for useful things. I suppose it'll all end up distributed open-source soon enough.
I just discovered freeweb. Maybe we can rebuild yahoo clubs on there...
You can predict where this kind of thing will happen. The basic rule is that a business will not keep it's word when it is no longer useful. That's an over-harsh simplification, but that's the essence of how you have to figure it.
... Got to keep those thugs busy! But originally there was some merit in their complaints. I'm sure..)
The scenario runs this way:
1) Party A wants something from Party B, but Party B doesn't want to give it, and Party A doesn't want to pay for it.
2) Party A comes up with an offer where they promise to do something in the future in return for the cooperation of Party B.
3) Party A gets what they want, at the cost of a promise.
4) Time passes. Other things may change (new board of directors? new CEO? perhaps).
5) Party A notices that it would benefit if it changed a somewhat onerous policy.
6) Party A changes it's policy. Party B can protest, but lawyers are expensive, and perhaps it isn't a real contract anyway (no money changed hands, usually).
7) If it's information that was sold, there's no way to get the horses back in the barn.
Result: Party A got the benefit. Party B was taken.
N.B.: The customers aren't always the good guys here. This kind of action is what originally stirred up the MPIAA, etc. (Never mind that now they are thorough blackguards. They originally had some right on their side. Of course, the ethics of Hollywood have been proverbial for as long as I can remember, so once they built a gang of goons, they started looking for new places to use them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
> ... Today, though, it's little more than an
.. memory is funny.)
> annoyance to us and a non-issue to newbies.
The proportion of people with the original viewpoint had diminished as the percentage of people accessing has decreased. This was predicted, frequently!, in advance. Some people claimed that the potential was so vile that newcomers should be chased away visciously. (Some people did.)
I'm afraid that the only answer here is "live with it". This probably won't drive Yahoo out of business. (I didn't give them much anyway. Did you?) the Trustee's have proven themselves unreliable long since, and I don't think that I ever trusted them. (I could be wrong
But watch for reactions: Further initiatives to make retaliation by individuals against abusive companies more expensive and dangerous. That is the expected reaction to this kind of action. That it will be used as an excuse to tighten centralized control, when it is the abuse of centralized control that is the real problem.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...is that the actual value of such information is much, much less than it's made out to be. Information is traded as a commodity. But like any other commodity, it's subject to speculative whirlwinds. And that's what we're in the midst of now. I speak as a marketing professional- the actual value of this stuff as a marketing tool is much lower than what it's being traded for. It's worth so much because everyone assumes it has a lot more value than it really does. Eventually the market will crash, but it won't stop information being collected because it's so cheap to do it. In the short term, the rush to build databases will continue because they're valued as a corporate asset- whether or not they'll ever be useful for cost-effective marketing campaigns. Those dead dotcoms with "valuable" databases will actually be worth... nothing.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The only pop up I ever get is the product updates one.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
.net passport thru work is the ONLY email account that has any validity and it refers to my work info ONLY. I figure the LARGE corporation I work for has lawyers aplenty on the payroll who have nothing better than to respond to the spam that I might get. I also use active filters and rules to sort my email. I could not honestly tell you how many emails go thu my in-box. Between 35 and 40 a day survive the filtering and 50% of those are still spam.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Or particularly expensive 900 numbers. Would that work?
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
If the story said that Yahoo will now sell your phone number and postal mailing address, people would be far more interested in this story.
When you say that Yahoo is now selling user information, that could mean anything. It's too damn vague.
I honestly am not TOO concerned with this. Mainly because I never give out my real information, and thank goodness the ACLU has been defending our right to give false info without any enforceable reprocussions. So, they can't call or mail me anything.
What I am concerned about is more spam. Through the use of yahoo's BULKMAIL folder, and BLOCKING everything without my email address in the "To:" field, I have blocked al but a couple pieces of spam a month. Of course those go straight to SPAMCOP as well. Not to mention that I use SPAMHOLE when asked for my email address to recieve registration information, and whatnot.
Now that's been a pretty good system, and I've stuck with Yahoo through several different ISP changes despite their lowsy web interface, incredibly tiny upload sizes, and lack of IMAP support. However, if I start getting loads of SPAM (that I am unable to block) I will just have to either begin hosting my own email, or sign up with some other service.
I suppose Hotmail offically has more users than Yahoo Mail, but I've seen far more Yahoo email address than Hotmail address recently, and believe many of those same users will stray from yahoo if this succeeds in annoying them.
So, Yahoo's search sucks, and all their other features (Groups, Mail, MyYahoo, Shopping) require you to signup and expose yourself to this crap, I can't see Yahoo being the top site on the internet for much longer.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I see. It's "flamebait" to say that, if a company starts changing policies, I won't use them anymore.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/