6 ms·
Spotify's new privacy policy angers users
- mtgx 11y ago> "Throughout, the privacy and security of our customers' data is - and will remain - Spotify's highest priority. Okay, this sort of line is really starting to piss me off - especially when companies do the exact opposite of what that line says, yet they still use it to somehow trick users into thinking everything is fine. Can we push companies to have a "Privacy policy" where they talk all about how they protect your data, and then a "Privacy intrusion policy" or let's say a tamer "Data usage policy" where they tell you exactly how much access they have to your data and how they are using it for their own purposes?
- jbeales 11y agoI haven't read the Privacy Policy, but I pulled up the Spotify settings on my iPhone, and the only permission it has is Background App Refresh, (although I'm not sure if movement sensors would appear in the Settings app). Is this some still-unreleased version of the app the article is about, or has the privacy policy changed with no changes to the data that Spotify actually accesses?
- sp332 11y agoIIRC, iPhone apps can ask for permissions when they need them, but Android apps have to ask for every possible permission up front. There's a better permissions system coming in Android Marshmallow, but that doesn't help anyone right now.
- alkonaut 11y agoThat's a huge difference in how invasive it feels. But in practice, I'd feel watched if I allowed my music player to see my GPS location up front, but I'm completely happy to let it do so when I activate the run function. In practice, the app could ask for permission to use the GPS the first time you use the "running" function, and then spy on your location ever after. The difference is in the perceived privacy.
- sp332 11y agoOn Android, it's impossible to install the app without granting all the permissions. So if there's a feature to upload your own cover art, then you have to grant it permission to look at all your photos forever or you don't get to use the app. It's terrible.
- alkonaut 11y agoSo basically they made a design decision that was thought to be good for the users privacy and it turned out to be a horrible decision. I can understand the reasoning behind their ìnitial design, but I can't understand why this hasn't just been thrown out and replaced already after it turned out so obviously flawed? At least they could have deprecated that system and allowed it to work with old apps, while encouraging new apps to use an iOS-like we'll-ask-when-we-need-it kind of system?
- sp332 11y agoI'm pretty sure it will be available for all apps. It's going to be in the next version of Android. (edited)
- xirdstl 11y agoYou're exactly right. The context is missing. When I install an app and it asks for permission A, B, C, and D, I probably have no idea why, and it's scary. If I'm using the app and discover a new feature that asks me for permission A, I understand why, and can make a reasonable decision.
- msandford 11y agoThe problem is that the granting of permission isn't strictly tried to that particular feature. So if the app asks you for permission A for "reasonable feature 1" it can then use that permission in the background for "unreasonable creepy feature 2" since you've now granted it unilateral permission.
- nenad 11y agoSpeaking of Android and its derivatives prior to the upcoming Marshmallow release (version 6), the permission model was based on all-or-nothing approach ("all" accept all permissions and STFU; "nothing" meaning not installing an app). There's a huge difference between informing user at install-time about all permissions an application requires and (not) knowing when they're used in run-time. In the Android world of cca hundred permissions and this all-or-nothing permission model, overall UX has suffered and caused tension between users and developers. As the latter keep adding features to their apps, sometimes requiring new permissions, some (aware and tech-savvier?) users will not feel comfortable about and even decide to uninstall the app just like some Spotify Android users already have. In this regard I've had a good experience with Privacy Guard feature on CyanogenMod 11 (based of Android 4.4 KitKat) and later. It allows you to control each app's access to a permission - allowed, ignored (disallowed), or "always ask". The last one triggers a popup whenever an app X wants to user permission Y (e.g. "Skype wants to modify your contacts" - wait what?!) where you can allow or ignorile it, and also set it as a future default to prevent being nagged with the popup. Although I personally very much like the option to opt-in or opt-out, I understand that even Privacy Guard UX is not for everyone. Luckily, you can choose if you need Privacy Guard and activate it per app, or have it automatically activated for every newly installed app with the "always ask" option for each permission.
- neildahlke 11y agoThis seems like very poor timing given the most recent gorilla entering their room.
- joshstrange 11y agoApple music is terrible and I won't be leaving Spotify anytime soon even though I was fully ready to make the switch.
- k-mcgrady 11y agoApple Music has been great for me and I've fully made the switch.
- TIM2014 11y agoDitto for me. I love Apple Music. I canceled my Spotify subscription prior to this news after using Apple Music and finding it more then satisfied my needs.
- josai 11y agoQuite interesting to see how different experiences people can have with Apple Music. Mine is that it's a disaster - even with the latest updates I have "synced" songs which simply won't play, synced songs which have been somehow misidentified and the track that plays is wrong, random songs greyed out in albums, band pages listing the wrong songs - I could go on and on. It's literally unusable. I'd love to be able to use one service that "solves" music for me but Apple Music isn't even close and I'm astounded at how botched the release has been. So yeah. Your mileage may vary... quite wildly, apparently!
- lostlogin 11y agoAn easy way to import spotify playlists would make Me happier.
- Jgrubb 11y agoI've been using Apple music since and have yet to encounter it's terrible-ness. Can you describe what you're referring to? edit: oh wait, yeah - the "For You" tab that has all those little circles to "tell us what you like". ITunes has almost 10 years of listening data, can't they figure that out for me?
- rem7 11y agoI was never a big fan of spotify since it required a Facebook account to use it. A regular email sign up process would have been enough. So I went with rhapsody.
- jbeales 11y agoSpotify doesn't require a Facebook account. I am signed up with a regular E-mail/password.
- strickjb9 11y agoIt doesn't require a Facebook account. I use Spotify and I never sign in with my Facebook account for anything. edit: I live in the U.S.
- more_original 11y agoIt used to require a facebook account initially (at least here in Germany, right after the launch). I had to create a one in order to open a Spotify account. The option to register using an e-mail address was added later and I migrated my account when this was done.
- codezero 11y agoAre you sure it required one? It may have made it very easy to sign up with FB and very hard to sign up with email, but email has always been an option (in the U.S.) edit: thanks for the replies clearing this up.
- BillinghamJ 11y agoYes. There was a period of time in which it was absolutely not possible to sign up without using Facebook. This was a few years ago though.
- more_original 11y agoYes, because I really didn't want an FB account (closed it since). There were even doubts about the legality of Spotify requiring an FB account in Germany: http://www.noz.de/artikel/61551360/datenschuetzer-kritisieren-musikdienst-spotify http://www.noz.de/artikel/61551360/datenschuetzer-kritisiere...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago> In a blogpost, Spotify said its new terms were updated in the interests of transparency. Screwing people over is okay if you're transparent about it?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- matthewmacleod 11y agoI don't understand why, though. - Company wants to be more explicit about what data they are collecting (their view) or wants to collect more data (others' view) - Company announces that it's changing it's user agreement to permit collection of that data. - Users are free to continue using the service, or to stop and use another service instead. What other way would you have this process take place? I assume it's not the entire change in terms that you're objecting too, as some of them would obviously be involved in development of useful features.
- maccard 11y agoSo where can I find a list of these changes from Spotify? I'm not particularly to be sharing the data they're asking for, considering I'm paying 9.99 a month for the service.
- delinka 11y agoI'm not sure I understand what's happening here. If the apps (desktop and mobile) ever asked for access to other data (I don't recall that they have), I've told them no. I just checked all my settings and if my OS isn't lying to me, Spotify doesn't have access to my location, my photos, nor my contacts. Now, I'm not happy that they'd even ask. But the service doesn't stop working when I deny access. Since the change in TOS, the apps didn't ask again. I do, however, think any companies wanting access to data outside what I feel is the app's purview should really stop couching their use in Marketing Speak ("We use this data to improve our service, let you discover content also consumed by your acquaintances...") and be more informative about where the data goes.
- k-mcgrady 11y agoI think the problem is that they request the permissions for specific features, but once you've given access they can use it for whatever they want. e.g. you provide GPS for the running feature and now they can also track you when you aren't running.
- bennyg 11y agoSo every single app that uses location services, ever?
- vilmosi 11y agoYes. Except I want Google Maps to know where I am, but why on Earth does Spotify care?!
- wvenable 11y agoThis is pretty circular as the comment 2 levels up is "you provide GPS for the running feature" If you don't want to give them permission to something, don't give it. Of course, that will also mean you can't use features that depend on it.
- 11y ago
- huhtenberg 11y agoNotch nailed it I think - @eldsjal The bigger problem is that you're in bed with facebook (that I also don't have installed), and thus have zero inherent trust. whereby @eldsjal is Daniel Ek, the Spotify founder. [1] https://twitter.com/notch/status/634666970378563585 https://twitter.com/notch/status/634666970378563585
- bennyg 11y agoNotch could not have overreacted more. Sure their ToS may allow for privacy creep, but that thread of messages between him and Daniel Ek was so cringe for Notch. He basically doesn't want Spotify to be able to access anybody's photos because how he utilizes music and playlists doesn't use photos. Sounds pretty selfish and naive to me.
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago"With your permission, we may collect information stored on your mobile device, such as contacts, photos, or media files. Local law may require that you seek the consent of your contacts to provide their personal information to Spotify, which may use that information for the purposes specified in this Privacy Policy." Sharing all your friends' contact details with Spotify despite them possibly having never even seen the ToS just so you can listen to some tunes seems more "selfish and naive" if you ask me. Potentially in violation of EU data protection laws too.
- bennyg 11y agoI wasn't talking about that part. I was talking about Notch basically not understanding why people would want to use pictures to make playlists and to identify themselves to friends on a social music platform. He basically said it was totally unnecessary and arrogantly inferred that the way he uses music is the only way people should use music.
- pearle 11y agoWow. He's voting with his wallet because he disagrees with the direction that a company seems to be taking. Everyone is free to choose for themselves based on their personal comfort level. How is this selfish and naive?
- sbarre 11y agoAs long as I can opt out of providing access to those features (photos, contacts, sensors) and still use the app, then I will do that, even if that means I get "reduced functionality" or however they spin it. I just want to listen to my music, I don't care about social features or anything like that. But if I can only use the app by giving access to those features, even as a paid subscriber, then I will absolutely cancel my paid account and look to other services.
- r721 11y agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10091031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10091031
- rectang 11y agoI'm a paid subscriber. I'm paying for the product, and therefore I shouldn't have to be the product. The Wired article suggests that Spotify are only offering a binary choice: allow the little Spotify creep to squat on my phone taking notes on me, or stop using the service altogether. Are those really my only options? I'm an email-only user (no Facebook for me).
- jschwartzi 11y agoI just uninstalled it and am going to cancel my account in a few minutes. I pay money for it too so that I don't have to sell my personal info and that of my friends.
- pearle 11y agoI just did the same and so did a couple of my friends. Sometimes a zero tolerance, knee-jerk reaction is the best reaction to this sort of thing. I just want to stream music that I want to listen to. That's it. I don't want any social features, I don't want my play list being generated automatically by my heart rate, etc.
- r3bl 11y agoI'm currently in the process of downloading the music I saved in my Spotify playlist (through a laptop). The mobile app is already uninstalled. Now all I need to do is to download those songs and delete my account.
- gerty 11y agoOn my Android, ToS still date as of July 8, 2014 so I guess this is still being discussed. I'll wait to see how it pans out but I'll seriously consider cancelling my subscription on principle if this goes through.
- shostack 11y agoApparently. I guess we'll learn soon enough whether a large enough percentage of their customers care or are educated enough to care. Sadly, the answer nothing will probably come of this.
- piquadrat 11y agoFrom https://twitter.com/eldsjal/status/634664239702102016 https://twitter.com/eldsjal/status/634664239702102016 > @notch And again it's if you use those features that we'll ask permissions for it. How will they ask me for permission to my contact data shared with them via someone else's address book?
- r721 11y agoWhy wouldn't they make two apps: simple (with minimal permissions) and advanced (current one)?
- opayen 11y agoMaybe to keep it simple for everyone? It's hard to explain to people why they need to have 2 separate apps to do almost the same thing.
- hussong 11y agoYeah, like one for old people and one for young people. I don't think it's possible to make one app that works for everyone from 15 to 75.
- f00644 11y agoCan't believe they can actually get away with this, regardless of it being in their Terms. It's absolutely ridiculous!
- SlashmanX 11y agoSo what's the big deal here? Spotify are(have) introducing(ed) features that require new permissions to work and everyone has gone mad? Is there any specific reason people are up in arms over this or is it just the usual "Facebook Messenger wants access to my microphone therefore they're always listening to me!!!" overreaction?
- pnt12 11y agoI think you underestimate the data collecting and mining done by Facebook and most modern companies. It's ok if you want it, but some of us would rather have basic functionalities only and deny extra permissions.
- honzzz 11y agoI am especially bothered by the part about "contact phone numbers" - I am OK with people giving up their privacy but I want to be protected against someone who has my phone number giving it to them. If Spotify or anyone else want my phone number, they should have my consent, not just consent of someone who happens to have my phone number.
- pnt12 11y agoThe terms and conditions also state that it is up to the user to ensure that people listed in the contacts list on their handset are happy for their phone number to be shared with the music platform. "Local law may require that you seek the consent of your contacts to provide their personal information to Spotify, which may use that information for the purposes specified in this privacy policy," reads the update. I think this is the worst part. Sounds like "hey, we're collecting private information, please make sure we're allowed to do so. If we ilegally collect private information, that's the users fault - we alerted them to get permission from their contacts!".
- robbrulinski 11y agoCanceled my subscription! No, you can't access my photos.
- werid 11y agoCEO just posted an update https://news.spotify.com/us/2015/08/21/sorry-2/ https://news.spotify.com/us/2015/08/21/sorry-2/
- r3bl 11y agoSo, they're adding microphone to their ToS now in case one day, eventually, they might build a feature that will need it. Good for them!
- JumpJumpJump 11y agoCEOs using 'always' is so funny when they only think about the next quarter. See what 'always' is worth if revenue growth does not keep up and the CEO changes.
- pearle 11y agoAn apology posted on a blog is not a EULA. I've cancelled my account and I will to see if the terms in the EULA remain vague and general.
- daviross 11y agoFirst I thought "Good thing I don't have an account", then it turned out I had one for one reason or another. Closed that straight away. Now to find out if they'll drag their heels.
- getdavidhiggins 11y agoAgain this is about choice. With things like Soundcloud, you don't even have to register to download music, and I've downloaded my fair share of 1-2 hour long DJ sets from there. Basically enough music to last my entire lifetime and I will never be bored. DJ sets are great because there's no skipping through tracks, and you can have them playing in the background when doing coding, and you can discover music accidentally that way. Also there seems to be no limits on Soundcloud with regards to how much you can download. It's all you can eat, which is refreshing. I'm curious how they can achieve this though. I know they have a paid / pro plan there, but still it screams of too much upfront value and I do worry about their viability into the future. But for now Soundcloud is exponentially better than any other service out there.
- r3bl 11y agoActually, uploading a DJ set on Soundcloud is against their ToS because those mixes contain songs that are copyrighted. Soundcloud is not a good place to upload mixes and that's why there's currently a huge rage between DJs and Soundcloud's team. Basically, the product became big enough to care about copyrights. If you're a DJ, you don't have a right to distribute your mix as a free download if it contains a song copyrighted by a third party. I suggest you to check out Mixcloud. It's a service made specially for uploading mixes, but it doesn't allow you to download them for the reasons I said earlier. It's also free and does not require you to sign up for an account.
- ballpointpen 11y agoI'm not a fan of these changes and it sucks because I was a fan of Spotify. I wonder if they ever considered changing the feature list for their tiers (paid vs. free) like essentially give everyone the mobile app but the paid subscriptions have the ability to choose what they share (GPS, photos, etc) whereas the free users don't have a choice.
- pc2g4d 11y agoOne approach other than cancelling accounts is to use Cyanogenmod's privacy manager to deny particular permissions to the app.