NY Comic Con Takes Over Attendees' Twitter Accounts To Praise Itself

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Comic Con Takes Over Attendees' Twitter Accounts To Praise Itself

Posted by timothy on Saturday October 12, 2013 @01:25AM from the you're-loving-it dept.

Okian Warrior writes "Attendees to this year's New York Comic Con convention were allowed to pre-register their RFID-enabled badges online and connect their social media profiles to their badges — something, the NYCC registration site explained, that would make the 'NYCC experience 100x cooler! For realz.' Most attendees didn't expect "100x cooler" to translate into 'we'll post spam in your feed as soon as the RFID badge senses that you've entered the show,' but that seems to be what happened."

150 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 01:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.
Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication.
1. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-12 01:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Morale of the story: low.
2. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Nerdfest · 2013-10-12 01:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.
3. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Jawnn · 2013-10-12 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well..., yeah. But that's asking an awful lot of a great many Twitter users.
4. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.
5. Re:Ooops! Sorry by gl4ss · 2013-10-12 01:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.
  more importantly YOU CAN NOT give just partial access to an app in twitter. you either give it all it's requesting or nothing and you can not go into your app settings and change. you can only revoke the whole app.
  but the guys attending should really have smelled something funny when they were requesting post permissions along with other perms.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
6. Re:Ooops! Sorry by hawguy · 2013-10-12 01:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.
  When you grant a third party access to sent Tweets on your behalf, don't you click through a warning telling you that? Why would you give a convention permission to send Tweets as you, and if you do, why would you be surprised when they do?
7. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  They'd be fined if it was in the UK, as it'd be classed as an advertisement and you're not allowed to advertise without explicitly stating it's an ad. Maybe theres a similar rule in US?
8. Re:Ooops! Sorry by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-12 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.
  Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication.
  Would you expect the sort of abhuman scum who would pull a stunt like this to even be capable of comprehending the concepts of 'sincerity' or 'remorse'? Not only do they not exhibit them, they probably don't possess them, and may not even have the cognitive mechanisms required to acquire an understanding of them.
  
  "we were probably too enthusiastic in our messaging and eagerness to spread the good word about NYCC. We have since shut down this service completely and apologize for any perceived overstep"
  
  I thought that that sort of invasive narcissism was only found among inebriated 'pick-up artists' trying to avoid going home alone toward the end of an evening...
9. Re:Ooops! Sorry by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-12 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.
  One gets the impression that NYCC was...tactful... in eliding exactly what level of privilege delegation users were clicking through, and certainly less than forthright about how those privileges would be put to use.
10. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.
  One gets the impression that NYCC was...tactful... in eliding exactly what level of privilege delegation users were clicking through, and certainly less than forthright about how those privileges would be put to use.
  There's not much "tactful" about this screen (sample image):
  http://readwrite.com/files/files/files/images/twitter-new-oauth-4-28.png
  NYCC are dicks for doing this, but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.
11. Re:Ooops! Sorry by wisnoskij · 2013-10-12 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  So you are saying that to attend this event, you needed to hand over your twitter username and password? No exceptions, or opt-outs?
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
12. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  They'd be fined if it was in the UK, as it'd be classed as an advertisement and you're not allowed to advertise without explicitly stating it's an ad. Maybe theres a similar rule in US?
  No, here the advertisers make payments to the lawmakers via a group known as "lobbyists" in order to circumvent things like this... along with other inconveniences like truth in advertising, legible print on television disclaimers, etc..
13. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Rich0 · 2013-10-12 02:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.
  When you grant a third party access to sent Tweets on your behalf, don't you click through a warning telling you that? Why would you give a convention permission to send Tweets as you, and if you do, why would you be surprised when they do?
  The problem is that there is a growing trend towards letting apps request permissions, and then giving the user two choices - accept all the permissions the app requests, or don't use the app at all. That is true of many online services, and it is true of Android as well (and likely other mobile OSes).
  The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality. I'd probably go a step further and not make it possible for the application to know what permissions were granted, so that app authors don't just force the all-or-nothing situation back on users by refusing to run if full permissions are not granted. 99% of the time partial permissions only cause failure modes that the application has to handle gracefully anyway (no access to contacts is no different than a user who has no contacts, no access to location/network is no different than a user in a building, etc).
  The all-or-nothing approach just gives app authors a club to hit users with - it puts the app author in control of the device, and not the user. Not running mobile apps really isn't an acceptable alternative.
14. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.
  Sounds like they doubled the wrong vowel in their name.
15. Re:Ooops! Sorry by fahrbot-bot · 2013-10-12 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.
  Of course, because if they *had* asked, I imagine the answer would have always been "no" - unless you're someone that likes other people putting words in your mouth. I'm sure ReedPop was operating under the idea that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission - or they're just dicks.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
16. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  The all-or-nothing approach just gives app authors a club to hit users with - it puts the app author in control of the device, and not the user. Not running mobile apps really isn't an acceptable alternative.
  I agree that it sucks, but how is it different from any other negotiation in the history of the world?
17. Re:Ooops! Sorry by RoboRay · 2013-10-12 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.
  
  If you take control of your device rather than allowing your service provider or the OEM to control it, you can do just that. On my rooted Android devices, I revoke any permissions that I don't want an app to have.
18. Re:Ooops! Sorry by peragrin · 2013-10-12 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  funny the same thing is true of android and that practice gets defended on /.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
19. Re:Ooops! Sorry by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-10-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Some examples of this:
  http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Remit-Social-Media.aspx
  The basic idea is that adverts must not dishonestly be represented as impartial consumer comments. e.g. I could right now say that Dr. Pepper is the best mass-market cola out there. I'd likely run afoul of the Advertising Standards Agency if I was receiving compensation for posting that message.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
20. Re:Ooops! Sorry by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-10-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.
  Absofuckinglutely! Shocking behaviour on the part of the advertiser, but greatly enabled by idiot users. They can't even argue this was buried in 6 pages of legalese - it's right there in front of them in a short bulleted list.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
21. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  iOS does it on a permission as needed basis. Twitter wants to use my location? Okay, I'm fine with my tweets indicating my location. Twitter wants to use my contacts? No, thank you Twitter, I'll spam people myself.
22. Re:Ooops! Sorry by faedle · 2013-10-12 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Blackberry did this: they allowed you to CHOOSE what permissions you granted apps, not present you with a "take it or leave it" all-or-nothing choice.
  If RIM figured it out a decade ago, I'm sure everybody else can.
23. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.
  You know what security model you're referring to? Blackberry.
  My ancient (2 year old) blackberry lets me selectively grant or deny application permissions on a granular basis. I can even selectively grant or deny network connectivity, so that an application can connect to an ip address using https, but can't connect to a different ip address by http.
  The Blackberry security model has been thought out by some very smart people at RIM.
  Unfortunately, the market really doesn't seem interested in security, even as more people put their entire life on their smartphone.
  Sad.
24. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Calydor · 2013-10-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  It is different because you don't get to give a counter-offer in the form of a modified list of permissions you are okay with.
  This is not a negotiation. It's extortion.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
25. Re:Ooops! Sorry by davester666 · 2013-10-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  every time I use twitter to authenticate somewhere else, they always request everything but reading private messages and changing your password.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
26. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  If RIM figured it out a decade ago, I'm sure everybody else can.
  Their financial success shows that this method will definitely prevail!
27. Re:Ooops! Sorry by davester666 · 2013-10-12 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  well, I would say they aren't interested in a very secure, obsolete smartphone.
  Up until what, 8 months ago, they were selling 3 year old technology with a 5 or more year old operating system, and then they released a brand new, buggy OS on 2 year old technology. Without a keyboard [which was the primary reason most people were still using BlackBerries].
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
28. Re:Ooops! Sorry by h4nk · 2013-10-12 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Spamming a person's feed may in fact be a violation of Twitter's broadcast terms: http://support.twitter.com/entries/114233
29. Re:Ooops! Sorry by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Really? It's "extortion"? They threaten that they're going to do something bad to you if you don't authenticate with Twitter and let them post as you? No? Your life proceeds exactly the same if you decline? Huh.
  
  Grow up. This in on par with a a teenage girl claiming her life is "ruined" because she can't have the latest trendy gadget.
30. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Calydor · 2013-10-12 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies for English being my fourth language and perhaps not picking the most precise word to convey my thoughts.
  In a sense it is extortion. There is an app you want to use to, say, get updates on events at a con. But in order to get these updates you have to allow them to post as you and essentially spam your friends, followers or whatever it's called. You don't get to negotiate. You don't get to make suggestions. You either take the deal as the producer has envisioned it, or you can pretty much fuck off.
  You want something? You are pressured into getting it one way and one way only, completely at the mercy of whoever made the product. No 'sales' or anything of the like where only the functionality you want is available. No ability to suggest some other form of 'payment', for however much you'd call it 'payment' to let the producer of an app take control of your Twitter account.
  I am interested to hear from you, however, since you disagreed so vehemently with my choice of a single word how you will defend this practice as actually being a negotiation. Really, I'm curious.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
31. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Contracts of adhesion are standard practice in pretty much all areas these days. There isn't any justice or fairness left in the world.
32. Re:Ooops! Sorry by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a "negotiation", but I don't see why that matters or is particularly bad. Most modern transactions aren't negotiated, especially smaller ones. I don't know where you live, but in my country when you go to the grocery store you don't haggle over the price of the toilet paper. You buy it for the advertised price or you don't. People who provide goods and services have the right to offer them at whatever price they would like. People who are interested in negotiating the price make that known by selling their products in a medium where that's more typical (farmer's markets, Craigslist, etc). Are you suggesting that people should be forced to sell goods and services for less than they want to? How is that fair? If they want to sell you an app only in exchange for X, and you don't agree to X, that should be final. You don't get to force them to sell it to you for X-1 because you think you deserve it. You don't have the right to force someone to negotiate with you against their will.
33. Re:Ooops! Sorry by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Damn that unjust and unfair contract of adhesion known as the GPL.
34. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  ...[D]on't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication.
  Yet the entire point of social media is to gain attention.
  People crawl over broken glass to sign-up for accounts with Facebook, Twitter, etc in the desperate hope that everyone else will look and listen.
  Any suggestion that social media users curb their self-promotional efforts is going to fall on deaf ears, because what's a little spam when you're trying to get noticed?
35. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Calydor · 2013-10-12 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Then please read back to the post I originally replied to, which asked how the app model is different from any other negotiation. If you want to argue with anyone, that would be the guy to argue with.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
36. Re:Ooops! Sorry by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  You're the one who made the ridiculous claim about "extortion", then defended yourself by saying English is not your first language yet are now trying to play word games about the word "negotiation", as if that is relevant to a practice being good or bad. If you want to nitpick over someone else's word choice, you lose the right to play dumb with your own.
  
  You either have a complaint about the practice or you don't. Stop being a hypocrite.
37. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Kalriath · 2013-10-12 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Only a very limited subset of permissions though. Microphone, location, contacts, photos. You can't revoke an app's internet access, camera access, file system access, bluetooth access, and so on - all permissions the app developer demands in the applications .pinfo, and which you have no choice to grant or deny.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
38. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  Hi. I maintained Twitter's OAuth implementation for several years. Third-party apps can be configured read-only or read/write, but users can only authorize all or nothing of what an app asks for, so it's incumbent on third parties to configure their apps appropriately. Unfortunately almost no one sets their app read-only because they figure, "well, I *might* want to tweet/follow/etc. on behalf of this user at some point, so why limit myself now?" It's bad behavior on the part of the third parties and it's led to users being unable to be sure about whether a particular app will be well-behaved or not, because they *all* ask for write access.
  OAuth 2 tries to address this by adding "scopes"—fine-grained permissions for individual features—but scopes aren't widely implemented at Twitter. (They're used for granting or restricting access to direct messages but that's it.) Even if you do have good scopes support, adding the ability to deselect individual scopes while approving others is a significant additional burden not just in terms of technical implementation but also when it comes to working with developers. So there are lots of technical and social issues that lead to problems like this.
39. Re:Ooops! Sorry by mysidia · 2013-10-12 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.
  I would go further, and say instead of just "letting the user modify"; provide the user a list of checkboxes for the permissions the app requests.
  By default none of the boxes are checked. The user is to tick the box corresponding to the permissions they want to grant.
  Also, there should be a dropdown box for "Duration to grant this permission"
  That defaults to 'Grant permission just this time', or 'Grant permission for 5 minutes'
  Also, for certain permissions; such as "Post article", "Change settings/profile", etc, there should be a dropdown with an option to choose "Prompt me for interactive approval, every time this action is requested"
40. Re:Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  Not by me. Note that there is more than one person commenting on slashdot articles.
41. Re:Ooops! Sorry by KZigurs · 2013-10-12 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  Funnily enough it comes from the fact that first blackberry devices were based on J2ME - something which had granular permissions baked in pretty much since day one (not all manufacturers handled them properly, but most majors did without a blip).
42. Re: Ooops! Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need to root to use AppOps.
43. Re:Ooops! Sorry by mattack2 · 2013-10-14 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the other issues, so don't consider my not mentioning them as agreeing with you.
  As for "file system access", every app is sandboxed, and can only generally access files within its app. Yes, I said generally, there are photo & music access APIs, but at least for music, I believe it's read only.. You don't have access to the entire device's filesystem.
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 01:33 · Score: 1

I'll blame the users if they never checked what "connecting to twitter account" means.
Slashdot is Great! by Hominy+Chef · 2013-10-12 01:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Slashdot is amazing!

--
Revenge is a dish best served cold -- grits should be served hot!
1. Re:Slashdot is Great! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-12 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  #/. Slashdot has the coolest Anonymous Cowards on the planet! For realz!
  
  Did I do it right?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
And Nerds, please, shower! by SternisheFan · 2013-10-12 01:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

In a message pasted on the event’s official website, Comic Con demands that nerdy attendees wash themselves and use deodorant after they emerge from their moms’ basements to attend the event.In a message pasted on the event’s official website, Comic Con demands that nerdy attendees wash themselves and use deodorant after they emerge from their moms’ basements to attend the event.
Apparently this is such a problem Comic Con listed “shower” as item No. 3 on its event “survival” checklist.
“Things tend to get hot at NYCC with so many fans around and you don’t want to be the stinky one!” the organizers wrote. “Do everyone a favor and shower before and wear clean clothes!”
Apparently this is such a problem Comic Con listed “shower” as item No. 3 on its event “survival” checklist.
“Things tend to get hot at NYCC with so many fans around and you don’t want to be the stinky one!” the organizers wrote. “Do everyone a favor and shower before and wear clean clothes!” http://nypost.com/2013/10/10/comic-con-plea-shower/
1. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by couchslug · 2013-10-12 02:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not Flamebait since it's the truth!
  Clicky da linky before modding.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't stop it from being offtopic. And it also doesn't make us forget the fact that you actually used the phrase "clicky da linky" as if we weren't going to notice.
3. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by SternisheFan · 2013-10-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  lots of attendee pics from the convention http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/10/new-york-comic-con-2013/#1
  Official site http://www.newyorkcomiccon.com/
4. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-12 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  #NYCC Which item number is it requiring you do double all of your sentences in your post?Which item number is it requiring you do double all of your sentences in your post?
  #NYCC
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
5. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by SternisheFan · 2013-10-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why that happened happened.
6. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-12 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  :^)
  It was hard to read with that. It wasn't like that when you hit "Preview"?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
7. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by SternisheFan · 2013-10-12 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  :^)
  It was hard to read with that. It wasn't like that when you hit "Preview"?
  I was going out the door and did it fast, read it when I got back and thought, "WTF?". Of my 50 or so posts here, perhaps 2 have been error free. :^(
8. Re:And Nerds, please, shower! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  It was doubly funny (pardon the pun) for me, because it brought to mind another site I used to visit, that shut down last year.
  Someone posted asking for ideas about science experiments, and the rest was epic. Especially since that sub-forum only had about a dozen regulars. So we all knew each other, and made personal responses to others' posts all the time.
  http://forums.starcitygames.com/showthread.php?39077-Science-experiment
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 02:03 · Score: 1

... for identity theft. Period.
1. Re:Prosecute them ... by Barny · 2013-10-12 02:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The people allowed the app, complete with special warning, to 'post tweets on their behalf'.
  There comes a time in your life where you take responsibility for your own actions. For the most part, we call this adulthood.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
2. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  An established principle in the law is that there are certain rights you cannot sign away. For instance, you cannot legally, voluntarily or otherwise, enter into slavery in the United States of America. It remains for the courts to decide if one's identity is one of those rights. Prosecute them.
3. Re:Prosecute them ... by Oligonicella · 2013-10-12 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But they didn't steal an identity. Just requested allowance to post on a Twitter feed. Unless they did something other than what the article said, there's no identity theft going on. Giving someone access to use your broadcast mechanism is hardly equal to slavery.
4. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Someone cannot apply for credit, file their taxes, or vote under another's identity, even with the rightful identity holder's complicity. The people whose identities were hijacked were not the only victims here, by any means. Those who read the posts were deliberately given the impression that the individual posts were the product of the person whose identity was attached to the post. That's fraud. Prosecute them.
5. Re:Prosecute them ... by russotto · 2013-10-12 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Someone cannot apply for credit, file their taxes, or vote under another's identity, even with the rightful identity holder's complicity.
  That's only true for voting. You can delegate someone else to file taxes on your behalf (though if they are paid for it they have to sign off as well), and you can give someone power of attorney which would allow them to apply for credit on your behalf.
6. Re:Prosecute them ... by jmac_the_man · 2013-10-12 03:18 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Here's the flaw with that logic. Look at this comment. Whose words is it? Mine, jmac_the_man, and as Slashdot puts it at the bottom of the screen, "Comments owned by the poster." But who is saying it? Slashdot is repeating these words to you (it's their servers, after all), and attributing them to me.
  Now, it's implicit (and probably explicit too) in the Slashdot ToS (and the user's expectations) that Slashdot gets to repeat back anything I type into the comment box, and further, that they get to attribute it to me (as long as I don't post as Anonymous Coward.) I am authorizing Slashdot to use my identity to repeat my words back to the rest of their community. (I use the jmac_the_man handle in several other places on the internet, most of which are linked with my real name. It's not exactly my identity, but it's an OK proxy. Also, several people do use their real names.)
  Now what if you tell Slashdot to post something, and then change your mind about it? Slashdot doesn't have a delete option, and thus, they get to keep repeating something to their community, using your identity, that you would rather they not repeat. You have given a third party, Slashdot, permission to speak on your behalf, and thus they get to do so.
  The organizers of Comic Con aren't any different. If you give them permission to speak on your behalf, they get to speak on your behalf. If you don't like that, don't let them speak on your behalf.
7. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  They can do those things on your behalf, but it must be so stated, legally and formally and they may not assume your identity to do so. They must do so under their own identity, on your behalf.
8. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  What your are describing is a situation where the word posted did, in fact, originate with you; you simply want to disown them after the fact. That is substantially different than the case where the words did not originate with you and you were given no opportunity to vet them before they were assigned to you.
9. Re:Prosecute them ... by Mitreya · 2013-10-12 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The people allowed the app, complete with special warning, to 'post tweets on their behalf'.
  Problem is, there is no way to say "install the app, but block all tweet-related permissions"
  Can't install anything on Android nowdays. Each app wants permissions to make phone calls, take pictures with your camera (without your knowledge, not just while it is used) or read address book and current phone state. No good reason for the app to want this, but no way to install without allowing everything the app asks for.
10. Re:Prosecute them ... by Ksevio · 2013-10-12 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Are you really comparing someone being forced into slavery with a company sending a tweet using a person's twitter handle?
11. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  There comes a time in your life where you take responsibility for your own actions. For the most part, we call this adulthood.
  Ha. Responsibility for my own actions? Clearly you're not a lawyer.
  Lawyers will explain how everything is someone else's fault, and you can sue them for negligence and butthurt (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt)
12. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, that was just an example of a right you can't sign away. Indeed, a closer analogy would be indentured servitude, a contract that was "freely" entered into, but wherein one relinquished one's rights as an individual, for a specified period. Note that it was the same stroke of the pen that eliminated slavery, which also eliminated indentured servitude .
13. Re:Prosecute them ... by gman003 · 2013-10-12 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  An app that allows you to write and publish a tweet through it, or an app that allows you to tweet things at your choosing (eg. "share this with your Twitter followers"), requires the same permissions. And that is probably what most people expected - the app would, say, have a listing of all the booths and such, and allow you, among other things, to send "I'm at the _____" tweets. Nobody really expects an app to just send out advertising tweets. This is perhaps a flaw in the permissions system, having two very different things be bound to the same permission, but there's not really a technical way to tell if a tweet was written (or at least approved) by the user, or if it's automatic.
  Fortunately, there is likely a legal solution. According to the Twitter TOS, section 9, subsection v, which prohibits spamming, this may be cause to ban NYCC from Twitter. It may also fall under their rules regarding impersonation or automation. And even if their rules do not currently cover this, I expect Twitter will add rules to prevent such in the future, because it's not in their interests to have unwarranted and unpaid-for advertising being fraudulently sent through users' accounts.
14. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  My BB10 device let's me select which permissions to permit and deny per application. The application still runs even if you turn everything off. Obviously, the parts turned off just no-op when called.
  Too bad Android is so far behind the curve nowadays.
15. Re:Prosecute them ... by retchdog · 2013-10-12 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  People like you cheapen the meaning of everything.
  There's also an established principle in the law where you have to be able to show some kind of harm or imminent harm in order to sue. You would be laughed out of court.
  Your principle is absurd, and would make ghostwriting a form of fraud.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
16. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  The difference is, presumably you, jmac_the_man, actually typed that message. They can repeat what you typed to anyone they like, whenever someone reads the thread. By creating an account and giving Slashdot permission to 'speak' on your behalf, you authorized this.
  If instead of repeating what you actually typed, they edit it? Maybe they censor a word here or there. Well okay, that's a bit less acceptable. Still, not entirely unreasonable.
  If the editors of Slashdot created entire fictional comments and attributed them to you, just to make themselves look awesomely cool and popular? THAT would be unreasonable and go far beyond the bounds of what anyone should expect. And that would be the true comparison to what happened here, rather than your hyperbole about 'changing your mind'.
  Yes, your last line is entirely true. But what Slashdot does and what these jokers have done? Not at all comparable.
17. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  You can choose to install Android apps written by people who aren't bastards?
  The mOTP app on my Android doesn't want ANY permissions, nor does the PwdHash app. Obviously if you want Free Angry Pigs Game then it's going to get the money back by spying on you. So don't install that crap.
18. Re:Prosecute them ... by preflex · 2013-10-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Can't install anything on Android nowdays. Each app wants permissions to make phone calls, take pictures with your camera (without your knowledge, not just while it is used) or read address book and current phone state. No good reason for the app to want this, but no way to install without allowing everything the app asks for.
  There are several ways to install Android applications without allowing everything the app asks for. The best one is called openpdroid.
19. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Problem is, there is no way to say "install the app, but block all tweet-related permissions"
  No, GP is right. The problem is that people installed the app.
  Seriously, you give an app access permissions to Twitter: a platform used to send out messages.
  What on earth could the app do with those permissions besides sending out messages???
20. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Harm to one's reputation or public image is a demonstrable and prosecutable harm. If one were to enjoy a reputation as a sensible and judicious person, some of the comments I've seen, which were purported to be the postings in question, would do harm to it.
  Your comment does draw further attention to the potential harm that might befall the readers of such postings, who would have been wilfully mislead.
  In ghost writing the individual for whom the writing service is provided has knowledge of the product and editorial rights over it. The people whose identities were abused, here, had no such opportunity to control what was published under their names.
  To suggest that I "cheapen the meaning of everything" is offensive, cheap, and wrong. It is you who cheapen the milieu of rational discourse at Slashdot. You should be ashamed.
21. Re:Prosecute them ... by retchdog · 2013-10-12 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in this case, they did agree in advance, quite clearly, when the app asked for privileges. The analogy would be hiring a ghostwriter with an agreement to not exercise editorial control, which is just fine (barring cases of libel). In fact, that's almost exactly what they did.
  Yes, significant harm to reputation is actionable. This is insignificant.
  As an aside, wouldn't making an agreement to allow an unknown third party to post anything on one's behalf make one, ipso facto, not a sensible and judicious person?
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
22. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  While you may have a point regarding the act of giving such permission being an indictment against one's judiciousness, that has no immediate bearing on whether one has such a reputation in the first place.
  Obviously, significance is in the eye of the reputation holder, potentially to be determined by the court.
  The real point is making this an expensive enough episode for the perpetrators to discourage such behavior in the future. By most accounts, it came as a surprise to the victims that postings had been made without their approval. This creates considerable question as to whether the perps made a good-faith effort to inform them of what they were agreeing to.
  Garnering misplaced trust may not be actionable in and of itself, but deceit to gain and or abuse of that trust can be. A material question, then, is whether the attendees so exploited actually had a "100x cooler" experience or whether they felt betrayed, ripped-off and demeaned. Evidence suggests the latter and actionable misconduct by Comic Con.
  Astroturfing is reprehensible enough without hijacking peoples' identities to do it.
23. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Then don't let them?The app stores tell you before you install what permissions an app wants. If every grocery store in town decided you had to have a prostate exam given by the cashier before you could shop there would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "oh well, nothing we can do"?
  
  There are plenty of ways to secure apps on your phone once you have rooted it.
24. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Then, I don't know, maybe just don't install the app?
25. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they can. I can sign any document, even a blank piece of paper, and allow someone to put whatever they want to above it. This is the equivalent to clicking a button that says "this app can do anything I could do".
26. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-12 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Physically they can illicitly take your signature and manipulate the resulting document, but legally they cannot. That is the point here.
27. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  The people allowed the app, complete with special warning, to 'post tweets on their behalf'.
  Post tweets on my behalf isn't the same as post tweets impersonating me. I read a few of those tweets and they are written in first person. Did anyone who agreed to that contract expect to be impersonated? I'd be willing to bet none of them did. Someone should hold people who cheat other responsible. That's called fucking obvious. Personally responsibility my ass.
28. Re:Prosecute them ... by lucame · 2013-10-12 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  in principle, you are 100% correct and i agree with you, but can we expect any of the attendees of the con to have enough money and time to find a lawyer and follow up? Sadly no...
29. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-13 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Legally they most certainly can, that was my point. If I give someone, say, a blank check that I have signed and say "fill in however much you need" that is perfectly legal and the bank teller won't bat an eye when they deposit it.
30. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-14 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, you seem to conflate a signature with identity. They are not the same thing. When you empower someone to act in your behalf, with a signature, they must do so under their own identity. To assume your identity is still a prosecutable malfeasance. If you conspire with them toward that end, you may be prosecuted, as well.
31. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-14 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  You can keep asserting it, but it doesn't make it true. You have been provided with numerous examples demonstrating your error. You have responded only with further assertions. At this point I can only assume you have nothing of substance to offer.
32. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-14 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't need to further assert what is demonstrable, legal fact. A signature is not an identity, it is nothing more than a legal instrument. Period.
33. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-14 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Black's Law Dictionary's definition of identity: http://thelawdictionary.org/identity/
34. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-14 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. If I ever want to tweet my testimony that would be relevant.
35. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-14 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  It has apparently escaped your notice that you argued giving a signed piece of paper to someone essentially transferred your right of identity to them, so that they might "... do anything I could do."
  In the case of the Twitter accounts, the authors of the tweets usurped the identity of the actual account holder. They did not state, "This post was made by Comic Con on the behalf of so-and-so." They impersonated the account holder.
36. Re:Prosecute them ... by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-14 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, it has not escaped my notice. I disagree with you and find your arguments generally lacking and not compelling. It also has not escaped my notice that you seem to be the tiresome sort who must have the last word even when adding nothing new. On that note, I leave you to that.
37. Re:Prosecute them ... by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-14 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, I simply feel it is courteous to provide a response to clarify my position and acknowledge another's post. Of course, your specious assertions also demanded a response, lest they be construed as the last word on the subject.
  Of course, you appear to feel differently about proper conduct, assuming an air of insulting superiority to reinforce insubstantial contentions and give the impression yours is the final word on the matter. You should be apprised of the fact that this behavior does nothing but portray you as a pompous, self-impressed twit.
38. Re:Prosecute them ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-15 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  I'm using xPrivacy.
Nerds by findoutmoretoday · 2013-10-12 02:04 · Score: 1, Funny

Let's face it, we are talking nerds, so in some sense no real harm was done, just maintaining the pecking order.
Odd... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 02:06 · Score: 0

You'd think they'd get more value out of hijacking Twitter accounts of people who had friends besides the other people at Comic Con...
Stupid users to lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

When you connect your social media account to somethiing, it's reasonable to expect that every permission that they describe they are requesting they are actually going to use. If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by wisnoskij · 2013-10-12 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  What I like about Facebook is I can allow an external service to post to my wall, so only I can see it.
  Twitter, as far I I know, does not give you that freedom to trick these spammers.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
2. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by Rich0 · 2013-10-12 02:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.
  Why does it need to be this way? Why not give the user granular access to permissions? Platforms like Twitter/Android/etc give way too much control to apps and not enough to the user - the user shouldn't be given all-or-nothing choices like this.
3. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fair point... but when the service is first connecting to your account on the social site, it does, at least in my experience, always tell you exactly what permissions are being asked for. If there's any that you're not happy with, then you probably shouldn't be giving permission in the first place. If you can, after the fact, go and adjust those permissions so that they only impact you personally, that' might be okay, but if the service tries to use your account as soon as you've connected to it, then there's not going to be any opportunity for you to adjust such settings before it's gone and done something you may not have really been comfortable with.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
4. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  If you can do that, then that's fine... often with these types of things, it's an all-or-nothing deal.... if you don't give them permission for everything they've asked for, you can't connect your account to the site. My point is that there's just so many people don't even read what's right in front of their own faces when permission is being explicitly asked for, and then they are all shocked and upset when something they didn't expect actually happens...
  I dunno... call me an unsympathetic boob, I guess... but I actually read that stuff.... sure, I can be fairly confident that they aren't asking for anything illegal (and would have legal remedy available to me if they were), but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't asking me for information or permissions I ordinarily would be uncomfortable with.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  *too *something *'Period.' is not a sentence.
  If I were you, I would worry about my own stupidity and laziness first.
6. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by peragrin · 2013-10-12 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm people not reading fine print of legalese because it is annoying useless, and you can't use the new shiny anyways and in software you can't even get a refund.
  In a world where bleach bottles have to say do not drink, hair dyers come with warnings for external use only, Fireplaces come with warnings that say may get HOT.
  Do you really think people read legalese? Besides if you want to use that app you have to sign up for it. you can ignore the new app but then your not part of the social scene.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
7. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by trytoguess · 2013-10-12 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, true. On the flip side, if I may make an analogy, just because I let some painters into my house doesn't mean they can do whatever they want inside. Still, the thing that really irritates me is Comic Con doesn't HAVE to do this. Their tickets sold out almost instantly. Even con volunteers had difficulty getting in. Why in blazes do they have to act like some shady spammer desperate to get noticed?
8. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by retchdog · 2013-10-12 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  oh christ, it wouldn't help. people would just clamor for granularity on the level of "allow the app to post for me, but only if it makes me look cool, according to undefined standards decided retroactively by the twitter mob," and then be shocked (shocked!) when this convention is breached.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
9. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because they have something people want and that allows them to negotiate from a position of strength. Pretty basic concept.
10. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  True, they don't need to do that, and they shouldn't be trying to get the user's permission to publish on their behalf. In the end, however, the users still did click through and agree to those terms.
  I'd click cancel the instant that I saw that kind of required permission on any third party service that wanted to connect to my online social network.... as I said, if they are asking for a permission, then there's every reason to expect that they will use it somehow. If one doesn't know how they will use it, then they need to ask someone to find out.... or, just cross their fingers, and hope that they won't. Call me a hardass, but I don't have much sympathy for people who do the latter.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
11. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by FredGauss · 2013-10-12 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  When you connect your social media account to somethiing, it's reasonable to expect that every permission that they describe they are requesting they are actually going to use. If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.
  "Stupid users" is a bit harsh. I'm sure that there is a reasonably large group of individuals that are relatively intelligent, but don't understand the technology and what they're signing up for. "To(o) lazy to read" is also pushing it. Terms of service, EULA's etc. are typically exceedingly long, and also sometimes verge closer to legalese than what many are used to reading. Prior to the inception of "big data", and privacy concerns coming front and center, I'm sure that many people were in the habit of simply clicking "agree" since it didn't matter all that much. Today this is much less true. The notion that "stupid people" should know better than to "agree" to something without knowing what they are agreeing to is potentially a dangerous doctrine to be pushing. Consider a con artist, or e-mail scam, or any scenario where there is someone gaining at the expense of someone else. Perhaps some blame lies with the victim, but certainly there are many scenarios where the finger can be pointed squarely at the aggressor.
12. Re:Stupid users to lazy to read by houghi · 2013-10-12 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  The reason they do this is because the user is the product they are selling.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"inventor" of the tech by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 02:52 · Score: 1

I actually pioneered the use of this technology at Bonaroo of 2011. My company brought the use of rfid to the concert and event seen as tickets and eventually added social integration and cashless solutions. We used it at the largest festivals across north America and many oversees including Coachella, Austin city limits, Quebec summer music festival and lollapalooza. The stuff we could do with social media always had possibilities, but the event organisers only ever used it for posting generally lame "this person entered the festival!" Messages; though later, some smart events actually used it to help people keep track and post bands that they saw and get info on those bands. Generally, the event organisers are lame about it though even when you tell them they are not using it intelligently.
1. Re: "inventor" of the tech by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  So, was being a contractor on the Death Star your side job, or was it your primary employment before it was destroyed?
  I ask because I wonder how difficult it is to locate jobs to assist in the creation of technologies that will obviously be used for evil, yet still allow one to retain some plausible deniability. There's always some far-fetched scenario where this shit could be used for good... even the Death Star. It's still self-delusion, though.
  Good luck on your future endeavors. I bet the NSA is hiring; seems right up your alley.
2. Re: "inventor" of the tech by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument is flawed. If we take it at face value, then the whole concept of RFID and NFC is evil, so you need to condemn the people that came up with it, and all phone manufacturers. As a matter of fact, you should condemn Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, as terrorists use it.
  I created a useful product that allowed people to enter festivals at extraordinarily fast rates (2000+ people/hour per gate), and drastically cut down ticket prices due to a steep reduction in ticket forgery, theft, and scalping. As well as "enhancing" the festival/event experience through quick cashless solutions, and other useful uses of being able to quickly identify an individual. So, what have you done with your life to help millions of others? If you ever had, which I'm sure you haven't, I'm sure I could find a way to twist it into something evil too. Since I'll be in upper management on the Death Star soon, I'll make sure you have an inside track to a good job there.
3. Re: "inventor" of the tech by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Also, we only used Facebook during my time there, and always made it very clear the posts were FROM the event. I personally would have refused to do otherwise. When you leave a company though, not much you can do to control what was made.
  I'm gonna go enjoy my time now with Einstein on the imperial bridge.
4. Re: "inventor" of the tech by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, sorry, I misunderstood that you helped millions of people. Shit, you deserve a Nobel for your selfless virtue and service for the betterment of humanity.
  I mean, god damn, you make Florence Nightingale look like Joseph Motherfucking Stalin by comparison.
  No doubt if you were in charge of the IBM division in Germany back in 1934, you would have solicited the Gestapo to buy your products to more efficiently process the census data. But, hey, they might have been interested in that census data for good & ethical purposes, right? Right?
  Glad you can sleep at night. Cheers!
Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 03:13 · Score: 0

Fail on both.
The former was a typo, not an indication that I don't know or don't care about grammar. Your latter objection is incorrect as well, as an interjection can stand alone in any sentence.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let this be a warning! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 03:22 · Score: 0

Let this be a warning!
Attendees of next month's NY Midget Porn Con take note ...
1. Re:Let this be a warning! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Are you the organizer, hopeful attendee, or star performer?
2. Re:Let this be a warning! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  It sounds like you're looking for a job.
wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 03:30 · Score: 0

would you connect your account to a badge?
"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused access by raymorris · 2013-10-12 03:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the few cases an app has posted on my social media accounts, it's been a benign (and true) message like "raymorris is at NY Comic Con". That's what a respectable organization might do and what I'd expect from a company that wants to keep my business.
On the other hand, what they did is misleading and they are assholes for doing it. Just because I give someone access to something doesn't excuse them for abusing that access. One of my employees has access to the company checkbook. If she abuses that access she could go to jail.
Ok by The+Cat · 2013-10-12 04:27 · Score: 2

Spam is:
1. Unsolicited
2. Commercial
3. Bulk
4. Off-topic
It must be all four or it is not spam.
And yep, I was on the Internet when the term was invented.
It is impossible for anything posted to a Twitter feed to be spam, since seeing it requires you to follow that feed. That fails the first test, therefore it is not spam. Case closed, end of discussion.
Learn what the word means before you use it. Spam is not "anything I don't want to read."
1. Re:Ok by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-10-12 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is impossible for anything posted to a Twitter feed to be spam, since seeing it requires you to follow that feed.
  By that logic, it is impossible for anything posted in a newsgroup to be spam, since seeing it requires you to read that newsgroup. Which is a pretty silly interpretation, given the history involved.
  You're not the only person here who "was on the Internet when the term was invented," you know.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
2. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Spam is:
  1. Unsolicited
  2. Commercial
  3. Bulk
  4. Off-topic
  It must be all four or it is not spam.
  And yep, I was on the Internet when the term was invented.
  But were you watching original airings of Monty Python when the term was appropriated?
3. Re:Ok by timmyf2371 · 2013-10-12 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  You might have been on the Internet when spam was invented, but it sounds like you haven't used Twitter much.
  Twitter has a feature called "retweet" which, for example, would allow me to post someone else's tweet on my own timeline, thereby allowing users who had not subscribed to the initial feed to see it.
  The other thing is that the English language is a living one; meaning that the precise definition of words can (and do) change over time. The best example I can think of in a computing sense is the word "hacker" which has evolved into a word with negative connotations. "Spam" may well be another example.
  
  --
  
  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
4. Re:Ok by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-12 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  It must be all four or it is not spam.
  Nope. The only two requirements are "unsolicited" and "bulk". Commercial and topicality are totally irrelevant.
  
  Learn what the word means before you use it.
  
  And now you have, so you can avoid embarrassing yourself in the future. HTH. HAND.
5. Re:Ok by The+Cat · 2013-10-12 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  By that logic, it is impossible for anything posted in a newsgroup to be spam, since seeing it requires you to read that newsgroup.
  Newsgroups and Twitter feeds are two entirely different things. Can't apply the same logic to both.
  Nice straw man though. Put a hat on him.
6. Re:Ok by The+Cat · 2013-10-12 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  Nope.
  People who start replies with "Nope" are usually towering assholes and go on to be wrong.
  
  he only two requirements are "unsolicited" and "bulk". Commercial and topicality are totally irrelevant.
  And wrong in a right now fucking hurry.
  Spam is commercial and off-topic. All four or not spam.
  I was helping build the Internet when your parents were in high school, son. Ask your dad what "newsgroups" were. In the meantime, don't lecture the professor. Class dismissed.
7. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  But they're not different in a way that's remotely relevant to his argument, nor do you make any real effort to demonstrate that they are.
  Are you sure the scarecrow in the hat isn't your own reflection in a mirror?
8. Re: Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  Spam doesn't need to be even bulk. A single message to a newsgroup can be spam. It definitely doesn't need to be offtopic - some the earliest spammers used to limit themselves to on-topic newsgroups., they were still spammers.
9. Re: Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're trying too hard to narrow down the definition of spam.. your description bears no relation to what we called spam when it first started.
  You wouldn't be one of those 'marketing' people desperately trying to define what they do as 'not spam' would you?
10. Re:Ok by The+Cat · 2013-10-13 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter doesn't have a topic.
  Case closed. You may now be quiet.
Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read by mark-t · 2013-10-12 04:59 · Score: 0

The former and latter are imperative sentences, and not actually interjections. The middle one is name-calling and also not an interjection. "Fuck" and "Shit" by themselves can be interjections, however.
Exclamation points aren't what define interjections, by the way... this is a fairly common misconception.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 05:09 · Score: 0

ZING! What a burn!
(erm sorry about the bad words, I am drunk and angry for reasons which have nothing to do with you, have a nice day fella)
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by tverbeek · 2013-10-12 06:07 · Score: 2

NYCC's mistake was to jump ahead to what they'd be able to get away with in a few years. If they'd kept the tweets "benign (and true)" as you suggest, people would've squawked briefly, but gotten over it and accepted it as "the new normal" for businesses to tweet bland ads in their feed. (One step beyond what Facebook already does with their "Ray Morris likes Starbucks" ads.) Then, in 2 or 3 years, when the ads started to get more huckstery and misleading, they'd probably get away with that too. The secret to boiling a live frog is to turn the temperature up slowly.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by zippthorne · 2013-10-12 06:38 · Score: 1

In ten pages of google scholar results, I couldn't find a single one where someone had actually performed the famous "boiling frog experiment."
I'm left to conclude that it has never actually been attempted and odds are fair that the frog will try to jump out when it gets too hot, unless the pot has a lid....

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Current Trend by theshowmecanuck · 2013-10-12 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication
I just finished up at a company that creates mobile apps for clients (under contract). Pretty much every app being made now (by all companies not just the one I worked at) uses at least one of your social media accounts to log in. It saves them from having to create and manage their own authentication mechanism. It also saves them from lawsuits etc if and when someone hacks their user database and steals the information because they don't want to spend the money to create a reliably safe user/security system themselves (or on the other hand if they just aren't bright enough to).
So good luck with that, at least for now. And the truth is, most users aren't bright enough to understand the consequences of allowing any and every app out there access to their social media accounts and potentially a tonne of their personal data. That, with only the trust of the company that build the app's integrity because they said they might have one in the copy on the page. Meanwhile the one thousand line user agreement designed to cover their ass no matter what they do says they can change their mind without telling you. Or after you are so committed to it that psychologically you can't break free... kind of like Google wanting to suddenly use all your profile information in advertisements. Now I understand why they wanted so much to get people to change their usernames to their real names. It wasn't for protection. Glad I didn't change mine.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-12 07:18 · Score: 0

its definitely a captive experiment.
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by Required+Snark · 2013-10-12 09:11 · Score: 1

Even if someone did the experiment with frogs, it would not provide data about other organisms.
Similarly, even if you did the experiment with Twitter users attending NY Comic Con, it would not provide data about normal humans.

--
Why is Snark Required?
100 times? by Arancaytar · 2013-10-12 09:54 · Score: 1

That's not even 1.2 times cooler.
Not the first time. by godel_56 · 2013-10-12 11:46 · Score: 1

From the second TFA:
"This isn’t the first time that ReedPop has had trouble with oversharing at this year’s New York Comic Con.
Last month, it came to light (via WIRED contributor Rachel Edidin) that ReedPop had the shared personal contact information provided by journalists during their press registration — including home phone numbers and addresses — with exhibitors at the show.
Wow, giving out your home phone numbers (if you were stupid enough to supply them) — are ReedPop a bunch of pricks or what?
I've read from reliable source frog will jump out by raymorris · 2013-10-12 13:26 · Score: 1

I've read from what I believed to be a reliable source that a frog will jump out. It seems that most humans aren't so bright.
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by NoMaster · 2013-10-12 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

In ten pages of google scholar results, I couldn't find a single one where someone had actually performed the famous "boiling frog experiment."
Sedgwick, W.T., 1888, On Variations Of Reflex-Exciteablilty In The Frog, Induced By Changes Of Temperature. Studies From The Biological Laboratory, pp385-410.

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc by zippthorne · 2013-10-13 03:47 · Score: 1

That's about frogs that have had their brains removed....

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!