Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Release Profile Data on 70,000 OkCupid Users Without Permission (vox.com)
An anonymous users shares a Vox report: A group of researchers has released a data set on nearly 70,000 users of the online dating site OkCupid. The data dump breaks the cardinal rule of social science research ethics: It took identifiable personal data without permission. The information -- while publicly available to OkCupid users -- was collected by Danish researchers who never contacted OkCupid or its clientele about using it. The data, collected from November 2014 to March 2015, includes user names, ages, gender, religion, and personality traits, as well as answers to the personal questions the site asks to help match potential mates. The users hail from a few dozen countries around the world. The researchers, Emil Kirkegaard, Oliver Nordbjerg, and Julius Daugbjerg ran software to "scrape" the information off OkCupid's website and then uploaded the data onto the Open Science Framework, an online forum where researchers are encouraged to share raw data to increase transparency and collaboration across social science.
The data was already public! What are you whining about?
Why did you post that drivel? The post was about OkCupid, not OkStupid.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
I'm not going to name any names, but *several* Slashdot users appear not to be able to read summaries with any degree of accuracy - the data is not public, but only AVAILABLE TO OkCupid USERS (yes, that is what the summary actually says).
*Very* important distinction.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This record has been suspended"
https://osf.io/p9ixw/files/
Kirkegaard's other work (still available) on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/a2yfn/
Interestingly enough, it works out to be great advertising for a really neat science site/service...
Presumably they have a tos which was likely violated. In the EU there is also copyrights on compilation of data which may also cause problems as OKC would own it as a collection.
"cardinal rule of social science research ethics". If that isn't enough a red flag, I don't know what is. Anyone who puts that much time in a concept surely is out to fuck someone.
Making it public IS permission.
No it is not. Perhaps you should read about copyright laws and privacy laws.
Bottom line, the data was not public available anyway: they used a scraping bot, obviously with one or more fake accounts. Which is most certainly against terms of usage.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Making it public IS permission.
1. It was not made public, it was only accessible after you created an account and hence agreed to their TOS.
2. European privacy law says even if made public, it can only be used for the purpose it was made public for (e.g. Phone-Book). Anything else requires explicit agreement by the data owner, and that is the respective person. No such agreement was obtained.
Seriously, understand the facts first. This was a criminal act.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nope, just an intense dislike of trolling, racism, and OFFTOPIC !!!
1. Because there is a distinction between data-mining user information and browsing user profiles as an individual.
2. Because the person did not hold a copyright in any of the material which he scraped and uploaded to another site. The terms of service at the second site require him to only upload material he has a right to upload. He violated their terms of service. I am sure that is why the material is now down. https://osf.io/p9ixw/
Interestingly, though, okcupid's /profile is not blocked in their robots.txt.
Real lawyers write in C++
If you wouldn't say it to a person you have recently met it should not be online. That being said this is still a crime. As a member I am moderately upset.
Making it public is not posting it to a site.
However, how is it a problem for a company to post that if it's not personally identifiable?
How could 70,000 people be identified out of the population of the English speaking world? Maybe they have other languages, if so include that I do not know the site personally.
The point is the same, how could those data points personally identify anyone, I don't think that they can and anyone thinking they can needs to prove it from the bottom up.
You still didn't answer the fucking question.
Seriously /., nobody is going to give a shit if you delete obvious troll posts.
from TFA: "The data dump did not reveal anyone's real name."
Usernames, etc, were revealed. A clever person might be able to find the true owner of an account if it was really important to him/her. Time will tell if any puppies were injured by this action.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Emil Kirkegaard is a total scumbag.
You're the idiot, idiot. How many times do people have to tell you that the data isn't available for people to take? It got stolen from the system by scraping. You probably think it's ok to steal bathrobes from hotel rooms as well. "It was just hanging there on public display in the closet, officer, I'm a member of the public, I didn't steal it, it was free just for me!"
A criminal act, because European privacy laws are criminal law. They can send you to prison for violating them. Rarely ever happens, but still...
I see one idiot here and that is you.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The TOS doesn't have the ability to block fair use. In the US, you cannot claim copyright on facts, and the "compilation" part fails anyway because the facts were accessed individually, not as a compilation. Also, OKCupid isn't based in the EU.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Gosh I hope I cancelled my account before then.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Privacy laws? Come off it, on data the person made public? The facts that the individual made public are their information, not OKCupid's. They make it public, tough sh*t. Giving public information to a company doesn't suddenly make it not public when it's willingly posted on a public server with the express purpose of the public seeing it.
And you can't copyright facts. F*cking morons ...
Copyright does not protect facts,
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Sweat-of-the-brow work doesn't give rise to a grant of copyright, and since they didn't hack into the database, there is no way that they can be accused of taking the data in it's original format anyway.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
EU privacy laws don't cover US companies with data stored in the US - that's covered by US laws. And it was most certainly made public, with not even minimal security. Otherwise fake accounts couldn't have scraped the data. You can't argue for privacy when you leave your bedroom windows wide open with a big "look in here" sign.
And nobody using OKCupid enters into an agreement with each individual person.
This is no more a criminal act than if I were to scrape slashdot. Or facebook. Or twitter. Or an online phone directory, which I scraped for 20 million names, numbers, and addresses about a decade ago - all legally.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You are hopelessly naive if you think that dating profiles are full of "facts". Or do you just like arguing with everyone because it's the only way someone will talk to you?
Also, as those logging in were presumably in the EU at the time of logging in, they would be held to the EU ToS, which *do* trump Fair Use.
Learn to love Alaska
Scraping is not stealing any more than using a screen reader is stealing. Your theory means that anyone using their eyeballs to look at the website is stealing, anyone watching a movie in a theatre is stealing, anyone listening to music on the radio is stealing. Don't hum that tune - remembering it is a copyright violation! Only problem, of course, is that facts cannot be copyrighted because they cannot be owned. There is no creativity in a fact. It's just a fact. Even if you spent years and millions, any fact you discover is considered "sweat of the brow" work, and not copyrightable.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You keep asserting that the data is "public", but it requires a login to access it. By your logic, you should give us your password, as any data hidden behind it is "public".
Learn to love Alaska
Not is the server is in the US. This has been hashed out over and over on slashdot. It's why Microsoft wants to move some of its servers to Europe, remember?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
EU privacy laws don't cover servers in the US. That's why some companies are investigating moving their servers to the EU. If it's not hosted in Europe, the laws of the hosting country apply, and ONLY those laws.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nope. Your misunderstanding of legal rulings doesn't mean anything. MS hosting servers in the US is covered by US law. A human in Denmark is subject to the laws of Denmark, even if the crime isn't in denmark. You are misunderstanding this to be a corporate law case, when it's one of the most discussed and settled international law questions of someone standing in one jurisdiction shoots across the border and kills someone on the other side.
The Dane in Denmark broke Danish law in Denmark, and you argue that because the server "hacked" was in another jurisdiction, all laws are invalidated. And that's simply not how anything works, no matter how much you want it to be.
Learn to love Alaska
This isn't fair use. Even in the US they have to have approval of the test subjects to use the data.
I have a profile there and it's only supposed to be accessible to members, as in not the general public. The researchers taking materials from the site that may or may not have been publicly view-able without an account is definitely not professional behavior.
In certain parts of the country, your best shot at finding somebody good is to go online. I'm not sure I know anybody locally that found anybody actually in person.
EU privacy laws don't cover servers in the US. That's why some companies are investigating moving their servers to the EU. If it's not hosted in Europe, the laws of the hosting country apply, and ONLY those laws.
Where do you get your info that the Danish court wouldn't touch this case because the servers are in the USA?
The EU is strict enough that I'm pretty sure that if one of the complainants were in, say, Denmark and the 'researchers' were also in Denmark then the fact that the data was on servers in the USA wouldn't matter to a Danish court; the person infringed upon and the alleged infringer were in Denmark therefore Danish law applies.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
As has already been said, under EU law the data belongs to the user not to the company with the servers. The jurisdiction of the user would apply.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That is completely immaterial, as this would not be a case against OkCupid and the data does not belong to them anyways according to European law. What matters is where the crime happened and that was in Europe. Seriously, the facts of the matter are not difficult and neither is the geography. An European doing illegal things in Europe with data of other Europeans is clearly subject to European law.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You can be fired and unofficially blacklisted. Academia can be more political than D.C.
No, we don't want administrative punishments.
What kind of banana republic do you live in...?
If there is a breach of law, it should be handled in court, or perhaps a civil settlement will do in this case...
I dislike it when people think companies or educational institutions should take the law in the their own hands, and punish students/employees for what they do in their private lives.
Sounds like the students who did this, might not have thought about all the consequences.
As for whether or not it's legal... That is hard to say, technically copyright has a lot of exceptions when it comes research and education.
That said, a court could also rule that students could do research without publishing the raw data; and that therefore privacy outweighs research and education exceptions in this particular case (because the data is particularly sensitive).
Regardless, it is not for the University to punish students for spare time activities. A University cannot acts as prosecutor, judge and jury. We have courts for that!
Actually it would matter that the servers were in the US. They exported personal data outside of the EU/EEA without the data subjects' permission, which is an additional offence.
Dude, get your meds adjusted. You don't have to be this way.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
EU privacy laws don't cover US companies with data stored in the US
But EU laws do cover collecting the data. That's what all the hoohaa about safe harbour laws is about.
Under EU law OK cupid could collect the data that they did provided they used it for the purposes it was collected for and required the same terms on anyone else using the data - which I think they did via their TOS.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
And you can't copyright facts. F*cking morons ...
Perhaps you should make an account and OKCupid and check how the site works?
There are no "facts" about me stored. And again: they are not published, they are only stored there, that is all. Only to be retrieved by logged in users. Not by robots. And yes, figuring my age, gender and sexual preferences by violating TOS of the website: is a attack on my privacy and in Europe likely a crime. Regardless if those informations are "facts". There are not many male whites born 13.12.1960 with blue eyes and size of 168cm speaking german and english on the planet. So even if most of the stuff is anonymized you probably can narrow the amount of people fitting that description to 50 or so.
So, back to copyright. What ever I write on www.oomentor.de or www.jiyukan.de is *mine*
You have no right to copy anything from it, or use it for anything I don't agree to.
That is a nobrainer and people should grasp that. I surrendered nothing in crafting my own web sites, I gave no one permission to do anything with it than simply reading it.
Why do you think "publishing" something on a web site is legally any difference to "publishing" stuff in magazine or a book? Hint: it is not!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I can't speak to legality of the researcher's actions, but as a Social Scientist (cue jokes about not being a real scientist), I can tell you that their actions were unethical. Specifically, I'm shocked that their Internal Review Board (IRB) thought it was ok to upload this data to a forum where all can have access.
Social Scientists, when conducting research, are under a moral obligation to make sure that their participants are not under more than 'minimal risk' as a result of the research. The most common heuristic for that minimal risk is whether the researchers are making the participants susceptible to more risk than they would normally be susceptible to. In this case, while the participants had provided data to a semi-public forum (i.e. OkCupid), make the data more easy to extract and able to be mined is definitely putting the participants at higher risk for data related crimes (e.g., identity theft, bank fraud).
If those researchers aren't in proverbial hot water yet with their institutions, they will be when the law suits come. The lesson to be learned here if you are a researcher....your IRB exists for a reason; check with them before creating a new protocol.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/
OSF has now suspended the entire repository, not just deleted the user datafile. Not sure why this is the case. So for now, the paper PDF will be available here: OKCupid_public_dataset_paper Edited to add: The repository is closed due to a DMCA request sent by OKCupid which is currently being investigated.
A good use of the DMCA in this case IMO. (Though surprised it worked overseas.)
Not true. Otherwise, why would Microsoft want to move servers with customer data to the EU? Ad the server wasn't hacked, any more than if someone had used a screen reader in place of a screen scraper to access the data. Also,NONE OF THE DATA WAS PROPRIETARY. Not one single piece. Just a collection of facts which were voluntarily made available to the general public. There was no expectation of privacy whatsoever.
Call me back when the EU bans yearbooks or other collections of personal data that have been intentionally made public by the individual.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They did not have any test subjects. The data was not proprietary. the server was not hacked. The users wanted the data to be accessible to the general public. And how many people can claim it's their personal information when they haven't even used their real names? None. So in effect, the data is anonymized, and even the few who used their real names, there's no way to know that was the case, unless someone did research to find out, and anyone can do that as well.
In certain parts of the country, your best shot at finding somebody good is to go online. I'm not sure I know anybody locally that found anybody actually in person.
Please, let everyone know where those parts of the country are, so we can avoid them. Generations of people have found someone without the internet. It's called socializing, as opposed to (anti-)social media.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The person willfully exported their data to a server in the US. Kind of useless to lock the barn door after the horse is gone.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It is not any more racist to claim that Israel did 9/11 than to claim that Arabs did. Ever notice how everyone is supposed to be all hyper-sensitive about what we say when someone is Jewish? That's exactly what the Jews want: to be above critique.
The first hurdle is that the individual willfully exported their data to another jurisdiction, for the purpose of it (hopefully) being viewed by as many people as possible. There was no expectation of privacy. It would be the same as if they posted it on a billboard and then claimed that anyone reading it was violating their privacy.
The TOS make it very clear that OKCupid has no responsibility to keep any supplied information private. Also, while it refers to a bona fide profile, their definition is a profile that is created to find others online. There is no requirement to use a real name, so creating accounts with fake names is ok under the TOS. If you read the privacy section, they warn against using your real name.
So, how is machodude345's personal information violated, when there is no such legal person to bring that claim? Oh, right, you can't violate the privacy of a fictitious person. Duh!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's under EU law for a server located in the EU. EU law doesn't apply in Oklahoma. Also, the TOS encourages people to not use their real name (you DID read the TOS before commenting, didn't you?) There is no guarantee whatsoever of any information being private, and anyone who agreed to that TOS, well, touch beenies, they agreed to it.
Also, how would user myowntrueself' have standing to claim any violation, since that's not even a legal person, just a phony screen name? So all the info under that name is not personally identifiable information, unlike me, who unlike most of the cowards on the internet, uses their name, knowing full well that there is NO expectation of privacy when you put something on a server that's accessible world-wide for the express purpose (in OKCupid's case) of distributing that very information to others, and the TOS makes it clear that there is NO expectation of privacy.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You obviously haven't read the OKCupid TOS. There is no expectation of privacy, users are informed not to use their real names, and the purpose of the site is to disseminate the data in the user's profile.
Kind of hard to argue that your data has any reasonable expectation of privacy when the contract between the user and OKCupid says otherwise. Or does the EU no longer recognize contracts?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
which I think they did via their TOS.
No, they didn't. They made it very clear that there was no expectation that their data would be private right in their TOS.
Privacy
You should appreciate that all information submitted on the Website might potentially be publicly accessible.
Pretty straight forward, but it gets even better in the separate Privacy Policy:
Also, whenever you voluntarily disclose personal information on publicly-viewable web pages, that information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
You are told all this in advance if you read the TOS, so you can't whine when someone accesses your publicly-viewable personal information that you disclosed. And if you didn't read the TOS? 2 bad, so sad, sux to b u.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Read the TOS and the separate privacy agreement. From the separate privacy agreement that is integrated into the TOS and that you agreed to:
Also, whenever you voluntarily disclose personal information on publicly-viewable web pages, that information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
Also, you were warned in advance in the main TOS that there is no guarantee whatsoever of keeping anything private, and you as a user accepted that. It might be your information, but you already agreed to make it publicly available. How are you going to bring a privacy claim when you agreed to make it publicly available?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Let's work this backwards... A US citizen accessing a server in Denmark, uses said server to conduct an illegal arms trade/drug trafficking/human trafficking operation obviously in violation of EU laws. But as long as none of my merchandise enters the US, the US can't do anything to stop me? Sweet!
Why not just read the OKCupid TOS and Privacy Policy, which most people appear not to have done.
From the TOS
Privacy
You should appreciate that all information submitted on the Website might potentially be publicly accessible.
From the privacy policy:
We provide areas on our websites where you can post information about yourself and others and communicate with others or upload content such as photographs. Such postings are governed by our Terms & Conditions. In addition, such postings may appear on other websites or when searches are executed on the subject of your posting. Also, whenever you voluntarily disclose personal information on publicly-viewable web pages, that information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
As a user, you understood all this. There is zero expectation of privacy. This is the governing contract between the parties. Have fun proving you didn't know that your information wasn't going to be kept private..
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Just a collection of facts which were voluntarily made available to the general public.
So creative works are "facts" and requiring a login is "public".
You are simply insane. Your reality doesn't match anyone else's reality. It's a form of insanity. You should seek help before you hurt yourself or others. You are insane and dangerous.
Learn to love Alaska
The sad truth is people don't care about the actual morality of data theft. They only care about whether or not the data is personally beneficial to them, and if it is, well, ... then it's okay.
Interesting, there is definitely an argument to be made that people can be hypocritical when it comes to protecting their own interests. Not sure why a person with mod points labeled this as flamebait.
What do you get when you cross a mountain-climber with a mosquito? Nothing! You can't cross a scaler with a vector.
I need it for ... er ... research purposes.
So just read the TOS and the Privacy Policy. And no, the privacy policy makes it clear that the stuff you post may appear on other websites, so much for requiring a login to OKCupid,
TOS
Privacy
You should appreciate that all information submitted on the Website might potentially be publicly accessible.
Privacy Policy
Information you provide about yourself while using our service
We provide areas on our websites where you can post information about yourself and others and communicate with others or upload content such as photographs. Such postings are governed by our Terms & Conditions. In addition,such postings may appear on other websites or when searches are executed on the subject of your posting. Also, whenever you voluntarily disclose personal information on publicly-viewable web pages, that information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
See - they are publicly available, and may appear on other websites.
Where's your expectation of privacy? Where's your login requirement?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
EU has laws that give statutory rights which cannot be waived through a contract. Since this data was collected and published in the EU, these laws apply.
Laws like these also exist in the US. As an example, in California a landlord must give the tenant a written 24 hour notice they intend to enter the unit for inspection, repair, or showing to prospective tenants. No other type of entry is allowed and the hours are limited during weekday, from 08:00 to 16:00. It makes no difference if you signed a lease stipulating the landlord could enter the unit at any time; you cannot waive this statutory right.
Take this as a lesson that you should refrain from making legal comments when you clearly know nothing of the subject.
Public available means: logged on users.
Not general public. Can't be so hard to understand.
Furthermore: collecting private data and/or making it public as in 'public available for everyone' is illegal under european laws. Regardless how you interpret the TOS.
In other words: the danish idiots (Denmark belongs to the EU!) are with one leg in jail now and have a hailstorm of criminal prosecutions incoming.
You should start to comprehend that 'the rest of the world' has not bullshit laws like you in the US. And frankly grasp it: a TOS does not deprive us from our 'bills of right' or other 'civil liberties', surprising that it is different in the US. Shameful and depressing that you find that 'normal' instead of changing the law or interpretation of the law.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
OKCupid may share it. But you can't look up the personal details of a member without joining. And TFA indicated that the people who shared the data got it by logging in, to get around OKCupid data protections. You are confusing a theory on how it could have happened, with the reality. Reality wins.
Learn to love Alaska
There is NO legal prohibition anywhere of someone making their own personal data public, and that's what the users did. It's the same situation as someone making their tax records public - the tax man can't but the tax payer sure as hell can.
The users agreed as per the TOS and the Privacy Policy, and that's the end of it. Same as, to use your example, you CAN allow the landlord in before the 24 hour notice if you choose to. Any provision in the lease is void, but that in no way means that if you WANT them to come in earlier that you can't. "Oh sorry my toilet is backing up but I can't let you in until tomorrow to fix it because some asswipe on slashdot says so/" Use some common sense.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Read the Privacy Policy before continuing to blather ...
Information you provide about yourself while using our service
We provide areas on our websites where you can post information about yourself and others and communicate with others or upload content such as photographs. Such postings are governed by our Terms & Conditions. In addition, such postings may appear on other websites or when searches are executed on the subject of your posting. Also, whenever you voluntarily disclose personal information on publicly-viewable web pages, that information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
No need to be logged in to use a search engine. No need to be logged in to find it on other sites. You have already agreed to this, as well as that the information will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others.
So, the USER has voluntarily made it PUBLIC, same as if you post your tax records on a billboard. The tax man can't do it, but you sure as hell can. It's clearly spelled out, and it's not in disagreement with privacy law anywhere in the world, because you can make your personal info public any time, any way. It is, after all, your information.
What is depressing is that so many people are commenting without reading the actual contract between the user and the company, which specifically allows for personal information to be made public, and this is done with the user's knowledge and permission as explained above.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
As per the terms I quoted, you are fully aware that the data may appear on other websites or in search results. No login to OKCupid to use either other sites or Google, Bing, etc. So much for needing to be logged in. Also, OKCupid, in their TOS, specifically disavows that they will do what they can to protect your data.
Also, users are clearly aware, as per the terms I quoted previously, this is all related to voluntary disclosures that they clearly say will be publicly available and can be collected and used by others. When YOU disclose YOUR personal information publicly and knowingly, it's no longer private, same as if YOU posted YOUR tax returns on a billboard.
That's the reality. Didn't read the TOS and Privacy Policy? Tough shit that's on you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You are talking about what OKCupid can do with it. TFA is about what a 3rd party can do without OKCupid's permission. You didn't read TFA or even TFS? That makes you the idiot.
Learn to love Alaska
No. It makes it quite clear that the data will appear on other websites and in search engines and that it may be viewed and collected by others. You believe everything that a one-sided article or summary says when the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy contradict it, then you're the idiot.
Face it - you were too lazy to actually do any research, so you didn't bother to read the TOS and Privacy Policy, and now you can't admit you are wrong. Teach you not to be so lazy next time.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yeah, all these stories without a single link to the data? Idiots. Where's the link?
Any idea why the US gov isn't suing them?
In the EU consumers cannot waive their statutory rights. And OKCupid had to self certify that they would not break European privacy rules in order to collect this data from European citizens in the first place.
So it appears that not only are the researchers criminally liable but so is OK Cupid. Oh dear...
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
The person willfully exported their data to a server in the US. Kind of useless to lock the barn door after the horse is gone.
Ah but the researchers then downloaded the data to their servers in Denmark.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So, the USER has voluntarily made it PUBLIC, same as if you post your tax records on a billboard.
What is so hard to understand? I bold it for you: it is still copyrighted by me! No one has the right to copy it and paste it elsewhere. And it is not "PUBLIC" it is only on that billboard where only the people see it who happen to walk by that billboard.
You can only very sparely search okcupid with a search engine. E.g. from me you only find a photo, not my profile.
What is depressing is that so many people are commenting without reading the actual contract between the user and the company
That part of the TOS you linked are not a contract but a WARNING.
The TOS is completely irrelevant regarding the criminal behaviour of the Danish "researchers". The TOS is between me and okcupid. It has nothing to do regarding what the danish did: collecting private data of people with whom they had no contract, illegally posting the results of their collection. They committed minimum 3 crimes: accessing okcupid without authorization of okcupid, collecting and publishing private data of real people, and a copyright violation of they copied the "texts" the memebrs of okcupid have written. E.g. the answers to some questions often include an explaining text besides the checked boxes.
The copyright violation in this case is probably not a crime but only a civil case, the first two things are illegal by European law. The danish researchers are: European! What has that to do with the TOS of okcupid? Nothing!
No idea why you jump around with your bullshit idea: it is published, it is public viewable, so there is no harm done. Ofc. there is harm done!!! Or do you pay me to seek out every web site that holds private information about me and pay for a cease and desist letter?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem is that OKCupid gave out the information with the user's prior knowledge and agreement. See in particular the terms of the privacy policy, which make it clear that the data will appear on other web sites, in internet searches, and my be collected by others.
They didn't waive their statutory rights. The purpose of OKCupid is to make this info available to other users; one of the consequences is that it will also be available to others, and it's right there in the terms. People are stupid if they think that anything on the internet is private when you make it available to users of unknown/false identity, and users who are not logged in.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The users were informed in advance that their data would be posted on other web sites, available in search results, and that people would be able to collect them. You voluntarily make it public knowing that, you can't then complain that someone else is collecting it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Your information is also posted on OTHER web sites. No need to log into OKCupid. That makes it public data. And YOU agreed to it in advance. Also, unless there is something creative and non-mundane, there's no claim to copyright.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The users were informed in advance that their data would be posted on other web sites, available in search results, and that people would be able to collect them. You voluntarily make it public knowing that, you can't then complain that someone else is collecting it.
Laws in the EU require that each individual specific use of the data must be approved by the owner of the data, thats the user not the hosting provider or service provider. You can't contract out of the law with TOS.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Personal private date means just that. You make it available to the public at large, it is no longer personal PRIVATE data, due to YOUR actions.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Personal private date means just that. You make it available to the public at large, it is no longer personal PRIVATE data, due to YOUR actions.
Sheesh, not MY actions, I never used the website I swear. Are you hoping someone you know used it so you can get some dirt on them?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Think of it - while I'm in favor of the individual's right to privacy, I don't keep my personal life a dirty little secret, so I don't need dirt on someone else to protect myself.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Most of the data is creative. As people write about their life and style of living. I thought that was obvious.
The fact that I agreed that OKCupid may copy it somewhere (which is anonymized), does not give the "danish researchers" the right to copy it elsewhere (un anonymized).
I did not argue against OKC, I argued against the "danish researchers". perhaps you missed that point.
And again: regardless where my data is published and how, it is a against privacy laws to copy private data and publish it somewhere.
Can't be so hard to grasp.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
READ the privacy policy you agreed to. It gives them all these rights. Everywhere. It is not against privacy laws to publish your private data if YOU made it public, stupid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.