5 ms·

Why Color is overrated

7 points by philipDS 15y ago

shssince1985 15y ago
It is overrated, because we keep posting about it, on this site and discussions.
raganwald 15y ago
Couldn't I could make the same argument about flickr.com? I take a picture. I call it "drinks after a bike ride." I tag it with "Pina Colada Bar." I make it public. How long before Mrs. James sees the picture? One in a million shot, right? What privacy problem does color.com have that doesn't apply to flickr.com?
- ocharles 15y ago
  Probably the fact that Mrs. James has to search to find the picture on Flickr but the data is given to her with Color. Mrs. James only needs to be at the bar using Color and the images come straight to her. I see it as a subtle, but pretty substantial difference.
- Terretta 15y ago
  Hs position is that Color's value proposition kicks in when everyone's taking pictures all the time, blanketing every venue with visual documentation -- more photos, not better photos. Flickr's value proposition is interestingness, not total coverage. Further, Flickr has three privacy layers, resulting in most night-on-the-town scenarios being Friends-only. He made this point with his odds argument. Odds on Flickr might be one in a million, but Color wants users to take a million photos, making the odds one in one.
- wattsbaat 15y ago
  For the stated example of an adulterous husband on a business trip, you're right. The odds are low of Mrs. James finding it. But since pictures are grouped by physical location instead of residing in some stranger's flickr account, people are very likely to see people they know in cases when long-distance travel is not involved. Is this a privacy issue? Strictly speaking, I don't think it is any less legal than flickr (but IANAL). But it definitely pushes the boundaries when it comes to thinking about your own personal privacy.
swombat 15y ago
First of all, there's no infringement of privacy if someone takes a picture of you in a public place. If you didn't want anyone to know about it, you shouldn't have gone to a public fricken bar with your adulterous date. If you're that guy who gets caught, sucks to be you. Don't cheat on your wife next time - or if you do, do it in private. What if it was one of your wife's friends who spotted you? Would you sue her? Big fat chance. Secondly, that's not a one in a million chance. Unless his wife is a god damn social media photo site addict, it's more like a zero chance. Why would she stumble on that picture, ever? Unless, perhaps, she goes to the same bar and looks through the hundreds of pictures taken there. But now you're not talking random chance, you're talking determined digging (or complete and utter stupidity on the part of the cheating husband). Thirdly, I hardly know anyone who's been talking about color.com anyway. That's probably the biggest problem they have, rather than the rare occasion when someone may be caught out in the background of a photo.
bane 15y ago
Considering that I've never once seen something nice said about Color, overrated is hardly the word I'd use...unless we should all just start relentlessly hating on it.
jchonphoenix 15y ago
Um... If Color is overrated, does that mean it deserves negative points?
peterzakin 15y ago
The privacy problem is not going to be what kills Color. Having a privacy problem to solve likely presupposes that they've been successful.
georgieporgie 15y ago
If the risk hinges on millions of pictures flooding in, then James isn't really at any elevated risk since he's in a handful of said millions of pictures. The only way Color makes things worse for James is if his wife knew he was at said bar on a previous night (i.e. she can't just show up in person) and sifts through those images. Or if Color employs amazing facial recognition and data aggregation to provide his wife a constant stream of James pictures. I thought this was going to be about Hot Young Things inadvertently sharing nip slips with nearby Creepy Old Guys.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joelangeway 15y ago
It is a near certainty that someday in the near future a start up will index all the faces in all the photos on the Internet. You'll be able to make queries like [pictures from last week with my husband in them]. You won't be able to lie about things that happen in public. You could still have privacy behind closed doors, but out and about would be part of the public record. This might be more like gaining transparency than losing privacy. I'd personally rather have the right to index data than the right to pretend that no one can find my picture on the Internet. I won't give up my right to take pictures in exchange for a vague illusion of privacy. This is very related to the problem of not wanting your boss to judge you by your facebook page and the like. This issue is a bit clearer I think because involves the facts of actual history in meat-space, not facebookery.
wattsbaat 15y ago
As a side note, this type of documentation of the physical world should get interesting when paired with projects like Microsoft Photosynth. (I'm sure there are other similar projects.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0 Something along these lines will make Google Streetview look quaint in a few years. (Although Google will probably be involved in mapping the world in 3D as well.)

7 points by philipDS 15y ago

shssince1985 15y ago

It is overrated, because we keep posting about it, on this site and discussions.

Couldn't I could make the same argument about flickr.com? I take a picture. I call it "drinks after a bike ride." I tag it with "Pina Colada Bar." I make it public. How long before Mrs. James sees the picture? One in a million shot, right? What privacy problem does color.com have that doesn't apply to flickr.com?

ocharles 15y ago
Probably the fact that Mrs. James has to search to find the picture on Flickr but the data is given to her with Color. Mrs. James only needs to be at the bar using Color and the images come straight to her. I see it as a subtle, but pretty substantial difference.
Terretta 15y ago
Hs position is that Color's value proposition kicks in when everyone's taking pictures all the time, blanketing every venue with visual documentation -- more photos, not better photos. Flickr's value proposition is interestingness, not total coverage. Further, Flickr has three privacy layers, resulting in most night-on-the-town scenarios being Friends-only. He made this point with his odds argument. Odds on Flickr might be one in a million, but Color wants users to take a million photos, making the odds one in one.
wattsbaat 15y ago
For the stated example of an adulterous husband on a business trip, you're right. The odds are low of Mrs. James finding it. But since pictures are grouped by physical location instead of residing in some stranger's flickr account, people are very likely to see people they know in cases when long-distance travel is not involved. Is this a privacy issue? Strictly speaking, I don't think it is any less legal than flickr (but IANAL). But it definitely pushes the boundaries when it comes to thinking about your own personal privacy.

swombat 15y ago

First of all, there's no infringement of privacy if someone takes a picture of you in a public place. If you didn't want anyone to know about it, you shouldn't have gone to a public fricken bar with your adulterous date. If you're that guy who gets caught, sucks to be you. Don't cheat on your wife next time - or if you do, do it in private. What if it was one of your wife's friends who spotted you? Would you sue her? Big fat chance. Secondly, that's not a one in a million chance. Unless his wife is a god damn social media photo site addict, it's more like a zero chance. Why would she stumble on that picture, ever? Unless, perhaps, she goes to the same bar and looks through the hundreds of pictures taken there. But now you're not talking random chance, you're talking determined digging (or complete and utter stupidity on the part of the cheating husband). Thirdly, I hardly know anyone who's been talking about color.com anyway. That's probably the biggest problem they have, rather than the rare occasion when someone may be caught out in the background of a photo.

bane 15y ago

Considering that I've never once seen something nice said about Color, overrated is hardly the word I'd use...unless we should all just start relentlessly hating on it.

jchonphoenix 15y ago

Um... If Color is overrated, does that mean it deserves negative points?

peterzakin 15y ago

The privacy problem is not going to be what kills Color. Having a privacy problem to solve likely presupposes that they've been successful.

georgieporgie 15y ago

If the risk hinges on millions of pictures flooding in, then James isn't really at any elevated risk since he's in a handful of said millions of pictures. The only way Color makes things worse for James is if his wife knew he was at said bar on a previous night (i.e. she can't just show up in person) and sifts through those images. Or if Color employs amazing facial recognition and data aggregation to provide his wife a constant stream of James pictures. I thought this was going to be about Hot Young Things inadvertently sharing nip slips with nearby Creepy Old Guys.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joelangeway 15y ago

It is a near certainty that someday in the near future a start up will index all the faces in all the photos on the Internet. You'll be able to make queries like [pictures from last week with my husband in them]. You won't be able to lie about things that happen in public. You could still have privacy behind closed doors, but out and about would be part of the public record. This might be more like gaining transparency than losing privacy. I'd personally rather have the right to index data than the right to pretend that no one can find my picture on the Internet. I won't give up my right to take pictures in exchange for a vague illusion of privacy. This is very related to the problem of not wanting your boss to judge you by your facebook page and the like. This issue is a bit clearer I think because involves the facts of actual history in meat-space, not facebookery.

wattsbaat 15y ago

As a side note, this type of documentation of the physical world should get interesting when paired with projects like Microsoft Photosynth. (I'm sure there are other similar projects.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0 Something along these lines will make Google Streetview look quaint in a few years. (Although Google will probably be involved in mapping the world in 3D as well.)