...should be considered public information. The street address comparison seems analogous here in many ways - just like anyone can see your address from the street, any time you use an e-mail address as a UID, it should be assumed that it's public. In other words, there should be no expectation on the part of someone sharing their address that it'll be kept secret.
I'm not saying this is a good thing (I think that, in general, sites that collect private information have at least an implicit responsibility to keep it private), but the bigger issue is that the average internet user needs to be aware of these really basic facts. Just like he/she needs to be skeptical enough not to click through to phishing attacks.
Until the state of awareness on these issues increases, there will always be opportunities for these sorts of marginal attacks on people's privacy.
I think TFA is missing the point. After reading it, I came away with "If we make work less like work and more like fun, then it will be fun." However, fun does not equal associating pictures, likes/dislikes, favorite colors etc with a business contact. I think the point is that if your job requires you to use a CRM system, then it is not fun by definition, and no amount of reskinning that interface is going to make it more enjoyable.
I agree that the ideas of connection, management and cooperation within MMORPG are potentially interesting in the context of managing large companies, but the "making work like a videogame" metaphor doesn't work for me.
The article itself is using "illegal" in the vaguest terms. It may be illegal to have offered and accepted the kickbacks - I think US law allows what amounts to bribes in those industries where they are a common and widespread part of doing business (and as long as the bride taker is not a government entitity or certain healthcare providers). For Dell, it most certainly is illegal to conceal the source of revenues from shareholders, and also from the IRS. From Intel's standpoint, it would be illegal to have offered kickbacks, and then not account for and declare them as such to shareholders and the IRS.
Overall, though, it sounds like the article put that line about illegality in just to grab readers attention.
Obviously, Sony didn't fully disclose their identity as the source of this site. But I don't understand why this is more dishonest than what Apple does in their TV commercials. Is it worse to pay someone to build a fan site that takes advantage of people who can't tell ads from reality, or to put out TV commercials that both imply and explicitly state that Macs are better than PCs at running media, games and doing "fun things" - which takes advantage of people who don't know the difference between an OS and an application. Or to put out commercials that imply that Macs are impervious to virii/malware/etc (as opposed to windows/PC).
Maybe Apple isn't quite so underhanded - at least you know that you are watching an Apple computer - but there ads seem to be at least a little misleading and dishonest. And if you agree with that, then pretty much everything being advertised looks like its being done so in a dishonest way.....
Slashdot Mirror
...should be considered public information. The street address comparison seems analogous here in many ways - just like anyone can see your address from the street, any time you use an e-mail address as a UID, it should be assumed that it's public. In other words, there should be no expectation on the part of someone sharing their address that it'll be kept secret.
I'm not saying this is a good thing (I think that, in general, sites that collect private information have at least an implicit responsibility to keep it private), but the bigger issue is that the average internet user needs to be aware of these really basic facts. Just like he/she needs to be skeptical enough not to click through to phishing attacks.
Until the state of awareness on these issues increases, there will always be opportunities for these sorts of marginal attacks on people's privacy.
I think TFA is missing the point. After reading it, I came away with "If we make work less like work and more like fun, then it will be fun." However, fun does not equal associating pictures, likes/dislikes, favorite colors etc with a business contact. I think the point is that if your job requires you to use a CRM system, then it is not fun by definition, and no amount of reskinning that interface is going to make it more enjoyable.
I agree that the ideas of connection, management and cooperation within MMORPG are potentially interesting in the context of managing large companies, but the "making work like a videogame" metaphor doesn't work for me.
yskel
The article itself is using "illegal" in the vaguest terms. It may be illegal to have offered and accepted the kickbacks - I think US law allows what amounts to bribes in those industries where they are a common and widespread part of doing business (and as long as the bride taker is not a government entitity or certain healthcare providers). For Dell, it most certainly is illegal to conceal the source of revenues from shareholders, and also from the IRS. From Intel's standpoint, it would be illegal to have offered kickbacks, and then not account for and declare them as such to shareholders and the IRS. Overall, though, it sounds like the article put that line about illegality in just to grab readers attention.
Obviously, Sony didn't fully disclose their identity as the source of this site. But I don't understand why this is more dishonest than what Apple does in their TV commercials. Is it worse to pay someone to build a fan site that takes advantage of people who can't tell ads from reality, or to put out TV commercials that both imply and explicitly state that Macs are better than PCs at running media, games and doing "fun things" - which takes advantage of people who don't know the difference between an OS and an application. Or to put out commercials that imply that Macs are impervious to virii/malware/etc (as opposed to windows/PC). Maybe Apple isn't quite so underhanded - at least you know that you are watching an Apple computer - but there ads seem to be at least a little misleading and dishonest. And if you agree with that, then pretty much everything being advertised looks like its being done so in a dishonest way.....