Slashdot Mirror
Jaiku Bought By Google, Some Fear Privacy Issues
Platonic writes "According to the New York Times, Google's recent purchase of Jaiku, a little-known micro-blog service (think Twitter) might raise privacy concerns due to the automated nature of the web site's services. From the article: "The deal, announced this month, has much of the tech-tracking blogosphere abuzz. Some claim it is the harbinger of a new, truly interconnected world, where a chunk of our existence will migrate online ... Chris Messina, an open-source entrepreneur and founder of the consulting firm Citizen Agency, takes it a step further. In a blog post after the Jaiku deal was announced, he said that he envisioned a world where all information had migrated online, where the address book "lives in Googleland,"'"
I can see the point of people concerned about privacy. However, I think the kind of service discussed in the article, a sort of address book 2.0, sounds pretty cool. Its something I would probably go for if I had a life. And as for the privacy deal, there's nothing forcing people to use this kind of service.
I can see it now... I need that address I saved to google to send that document to that important client but- uh-oh! 404! I love the internet! I'm so glad I migrated all of my personal information to Google!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
If Google bought my company I'd tell everyone to migrate their whole lives to Google, too.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
More space for me. On a more serious note, don't put things online if you don't want the world to know. Better yet, assume everything transfered via the internet is world readable (444)
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Next time she asks you to go down on her, say "I will be right back."
Come back with a clothespin on your nose and say "Here goes nuthin'..."
Living With a Nerd
It's a little late to start taking privacy issues with Google...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
From TFA: "This kind of information paints a picture of what a person is thinking or doing." ... "In practical terms, Jaiku's mobile application allows users to broadcast not only their whereabouts, but how the phone is being used, even what kind of music it is playing. ... "
It has leaked that there are plans to make the use of the service mandatory for US-inhabitants.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Is there a way I can block all stories involving usage of the word blogosphere? I've accepted blog as the hip way to say webpage, but blogosphere takes it a step too far.
What's next, newspapers are papticles and the news industry becomes the infoknot.?
So this tool automatically gathers little scraps of information about a user and draws lines between what it thinks are logical connections (like any good tinfoil hat aficionado might do in a dank basement) into some sort of tag cloud for that user. Ostensibly the use is used by applications as a sort of "stuff about you" repository, so maybe in one application you set your default home address as something when you go to use an application that requires your home address it could dip into that repository and insert it for you.
The pro: It's like having an assistant
The con: It's like having an assistant who works for the FBI
crazy dynamite monkey
_________ (random company)bought by Google, ____________ (some random blogger) fears _______________ (some wild ass speculation).
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I understand the danger of having a single company (Google in this case) having easy access to comprehensive data about your life (location, email records, search habits, etc.). And I firmly believe that people need to educate themselves about the dangers of releasing too much personal information. But I fail to see how this recent Google acquisition is cause for great concern. Mobile devices are increasingly useful. So are social networking tools. Merging the two is an obvious next step, and a step that Google is taking.
I don't think Google is capable of giving a 404 anymore, short of Global Thermonuclear War (TM). Of course, when Global Thermonuclear War breaks out, that's when you need your address book the most, but good luck with your phone working then, either.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
That decision is actually fairly easy to do. Just don't put it online. If you don't want people to know about it, don't make it publicly accessible.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Deleted
Or a new wave of massive DDOS attacks?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
1. Google buys some somethin' or other. 2. OMG!!! It threatens your privacy. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
No Nyarlathotep, No Chaos
Know Nyarlathotep, Know Chaos
and why exactly shouldn't people fear losing their privacy?
It's actually very fortunate. Privacy is something that I value highly, and yet sometimes I don't mind losing it (I wouldn't mind every one of these posts coming back to my employer, etc). Fighting the loss of privacy will help keep the loss of privacy in check so that, when we reach an equilibrium with the internet, when the change isn't so great, we can sit back and see that we've struck a good balance between public information and the ability to keep things private, for instance, which porn sites we subscribe to.
Jaiku, blogger site Once alone, now of Google Privacy, evil
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Here is Chris Messina's blog entry on his inclusion in the NY Times piece.
In a nutshell, he doesn't like the NY Times' headline.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
Are you saying you value privacy. What are YOU hiding?
Remember the uproar from the PIII chip serial numbers? How about the GPS tracking enabled in phones? We didn't even know what they had planned but the fact they existed and could potentially be used to track us was enough to foster consumer action that eventually made it possible to at least disable them. Granted in those cases the fact we had no way of disabling it was an important aspect but my point is that we had issue with it in principle. Unfortunately over the years I've noticed a decrease in healthy paranoia... or is it just me?
Google IMHO started to break this healthy paranoia by putting out a product that will index your email on their systems for an undisclosed purpose... and we ate it right up because woohoo it's a ton of storage and Google does no evil! This IMHO is but another probe to see how much they can get away with. I see it much like M$ and what they can get away with antitrust-wise, the RIAA and legal process, etc.
Besides privacy concerns, do we now need antitrust-like legislation regarding how much information about a person's life a single non-governmental agency can hold? This is not nearly as obscure as a PII serial number in terms of how dangerous, easily misused, etc. yet instead of being in an uproar we're "questioning" it. Replace Google with almost any other company (except Apple due to Jobs' reality suspension field) and I'd bet the "questioning" would be more like an uproar.
Beware the wolves in sheep's clothing... and, no, I'm no one's fanboy as in my role I have to be platform agnostic.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
Jaiku, blogger site
Once alone, now of Google
Privacy, evil
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I know there were some DDOS attacks that brought down Yahoo, but has Google ever been successfully attacked like that? The only time I've ever heard of Google having any sort of problems with malicious users was their insecure javascript running gmail, and that's been fixed.
Since when is the fact that a person is terribly dull and fully uninteresting considered private information?
You obviously don't use GMail.
I am Homer of Borg. Resistance is Fut.. Mmmmmmmm, Donuts!
Your response has nothing to do with the parent's comment. Before entering a discussion, it might be good idea for you to de-ass your head. The air is great out here, and people won't have to yell so loud to reach your ears.
Hey, my first down moderation. How very exciting. As your post seems to be the only interesting reply, I'll respond to you.
You say that one thing we might wish to keep private is which porn sits we subscribe to. I say the reason one might want to keep such a thing private is very indirect. You aren't worried that others will you look at porn or porn of type $(?). You are worried that there will be a societal backlash. The problem is that society doesn't accept common thoughts and behavior as normal. The problem is not that you are losing your privacy. Privacy in and of itself has no value.
At least, that is my opinion. You are free to disagree. Still, moderators, -1 troll is not a substitute for -1 disagree. At least, that is what I read in someone's sig. It sounded right to me.
Insert self-referential sig here.
The idea of Google or Facebook pulling data from my mobile phone and adding it to some on-line profile seems a bit much, although really it's a small and logical step from what places like Facebook do already.
If anyone can pull this off it will be Google precisely because despite some bad press the vast majority of people outside of Slashdot still trust the company to "do no evil."
As we move from Web 2.0 to Web 3.whatever, companies will increasingly need to be able ensure that user data is both respected and protected, and will need to offer Facebook-like tools that will let users decide what data will be available for what uses. Very soon we will all demand the option of saying "My regular phone number is available to everyone, but my cel number is restricted to people on buddy list #1, and my MSN handle to people on buddy list #2."
The real seller would be one unified contact list that could be used across e-mail, Facebook, Myspace, and whatever other systems we access regularly. Kind of like what Google already does with their Gmail/Blogger/groups etc ID, or what Microsoft probably hoped for with Passport.
Three Squirrels
Anonymous Coward? How fitting. It is precisely because of cowards that we need privacy. If more people accepted people for who they are, and stood up against people who don't, privacy would have little value.
You are right however that the thoughts expressed in my post were incomplete. They were not poorly thought out or intended to troll however.
Insert self-referential sig here.
Not yet, but as the internet gets more advanced in security, so do the attackers. Forget the DDOS of Google scenario for a second... how about just a DDOS of your own local ISP or, even simpler, no telephone service for a few days. We already rely on the internet a lot... imagine having to rely on it totally for all of your information when so many things could prevent access.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
That's what "Google Gears" is for. In otherwords, the only time you should have a problem is if you are not only being DDOS'ed, but on a completely new machine that's never hooked up with your service before.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2204615,00.asp
technical writing / development
You say that one thing we might wish to keep private is which porn sits we subscribe to. I say the reason one might want to keep such a thing private is very indirect. You aren't worried that others will you look at porn or porn of type $(?). You are worried that there will be a societal backlash. The problem is that society doesn't accept common thoughts and behavior as normal. The problem is not that you are losing your privacy. Privacy in and of itself has no value.
Porn is really prevalent with men and semi-prevalent with women. Although it's a short coming of society that such behavior can be seen as a liability even though it is common, it none the less is true. Thus If you wish to keep your subscription to "Norwegian obese midget sex" to yourself it really ought to be up to you. You are judged for the majority of the things you do. Thus many pieces of information may be used to paint you in a negative light. The right to privacy helps you release only the information you wish.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Ok.
All of it?
Phew, that was easy.
Seriously though, omnipotance is only scary when it's one way. If the government knows everything about me, but I also know everything about them, I really don't need to fear them.
90% of the things people are worried over the world finding out about them are things that 90% of the world shares in common with them. And the remaining 10% of the things people are worried over others knowing about them are easily overlooked when you know the 10% of everyone else as well.
If... yes, that's the problem. We live in this real world and not in an 'if-world' - that's why we need privacy and we should protect it. "If more people accepted people..." - yep, maybe... but it's not gonna happen. There is no use using idealistic dreams as arguments. BTW, I think we should be very carefull with the word 'if'. How many deadly ideologies have started by assuming that we would be all happy if... and trying to make some of these 'if's real?
It seems like every action Google takes raises privacy concerns.
Google is an information company. They do stuff with information. There will *always* be privacy concerns. I don't think that makes Google evil.
Though, as far as I am concerned, Google became evil the day they turned down my employment application.
Google is going on some convoluted anti-M$ M$ M$ OMG M$! rant?
Wait, there's a website with the same name as that asshole.
even without concerns for misuse, it's a question of informed consent && a free market for the value of your personal data. Google's self-proclaimed goal of collecting all the world's information is possibly monopolostic and in its economic interest to reduce the percieved value of that information to you.
For example, in exchange for datamining your search and placing highly valuable tagetted ads, Google et. al. gives you free websearch. People get this, and agree to it-- but its probably not so much the case with say Doubleclick beacons showing their page views being synced with their searches...
mod parent up!
I agree that you didn't deserve that down moderation, and I didn't mean to imply that was the only one. I was using it as an example, like hiding a surprise party from your significant other or hiding your whereabouts from a stalker. Besides, even if society should change (which is another argument), it's not going to any time in the near future.
That way you wouldn't have to take any measures to stop others from knowing your private stuff.
However, we value our privacy, so care about big broogle.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
I use gmail for all my email. It has never been down as long as I can remember.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
"I use gmail for all my email."
I do to, and all I can say is you've been very lucky. I've had 6 or 8 GMail outages, some for 30 mins, some for a few hours. Not in the distant past either. The most recent outage for me and my accounts (or, probably the server my account was on) was about 3 months ago.
Go search Google Groups. You will see lots of people that get random messages from GMail saying it's down. There's some people in those groups where GMail has been down for days at a time.
For you, GMail won't work. Same PC, another user logs into a different GMail account and it does work. I've never seen it go down for everyone, but don't think for a minute it doesn't go down for people all the time.
I am Homer of Borg. Resistance is Fut.. Mmmmmmmm, Donuts!
I have to admit, I am getting a little sick of Google purchasing Web 2.0 sites and closing them to new users. I was literally on my way to register when I found out that Jaiku had gone the way of GrandCentral...
Oh well, guess everyone will dump Jaiku. I know I have....It's all about Pownce for me now. Hate on Kevin Rose all you want, his take on micro-blogging is MUCH better than Twitter and Jaiku.
I would say that to you, it had a lot to do with the previous post. Which is far more than I can say about your trolling.
I don't personally care when my own friends go to the bank, the grocery store or the laundromat. If the place is robbed while they are there that is interesting, and worrisome as well. Since they are my friends, I would care if they found some sort of new food to try or if they figured out a time when the laundromat is more convenient, but mainly because I know these people.
Microblogging is tedious by its own nature, and whether it is done in a manual fashion or it is done automatically, it is still a tedious and exceedingly dull thing to read. As such if nobody, or very few people, are reading it the amount of damage it can do to ones privacy is quite small.
Private information is just as unread if it is unread on a website as if it is unread in a safety deposit box. Unread is unread, and while the odds of it remaining unread are much greater in the bank, until the information is read or viewed, it is still basically private. Once somebody tries to access the information is when placement makes a difference.
Actually, Google bought two mobility sites: Jaiku and Zingku, not just one.
This may be in anticipation of the launch of the gPhone, rumored to be launched end of this year.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Like farts in the wind
Your data floats free from you
Your porn's now public
"It is unfortunate that it is human nature to fear losing privacy"
Where do you see a reference to "microblogging" in that? The ONLY thing that sentence states is that it's unfortunate for people to fear losing their privacy, and THAT is what I took issue with.
Again, read the parent fucking post, and stop making tangential arguments.