4 ms·

The argument against this startup is the same argument that was made when Facebook introduced the news feed; namely, that there is a difference in terms of the

The argument against this startup is the same argument that was made when Facebook introduced the news feed; namely, that there is a difference in terms of the privacy of merely having publicly available data and aggregating that very data. The argument has to be, the very aggregation of data is an invasion of privacy; the added simplicity is an aide to stalking and illegal/immoral in itself. This is sort of the 'see-through window' argument - If you live in a sky-scraper and you have sex in front of a window, and somebody takes a photo, is that invasion of privacy? The 'information' was technically already out there, and the photographer merely aggregated it (lets say he also found out who lived in the apartment through information publicly available) and posted it online. Can aggregation in itself be an act of intrusion? I don't know, but its one hell of an argument to have.

jamiequint 18y ago
With Facebook news feed the data is limited by the fact that you have privacy settings and can limit the information you provide to a certain set of people which you choose.
- AlexeyMK 18y ago
  Yes, precisely. This is how Facebook moved to address the initial news feed/mini feed issues. The current start-up is likely to be under similar constraints; unless they're everybody's friend, only publicly accessible information should become available in the first place. And yet it still feels uncomfortable that the aggregation (basically a social-network google-ing of you) is so easy.
sfk 18y ago
I would say that aggregating publicly available data and making it searchable can be intrusive, even in seemingly harmless cases like Google Street View. A couple of remarks on your second paragraph. I often read the view (Slashdot) that if you are in public, or publicly visible, you have no expectation of privacy. This is false in many legislations. I cannot comment on U.S. law, but in Germany (and I presume in many other European countries), you need a person's consent before publishing their picture. Exceptions: a) You are in a public place and you are clearly not the center of the picture. b) You participated in a public event (where it is likely that pictures are taken). c) You are a public figure. Note that even in the case of a public figure you would not be allowed to publish pictures of them engaging in sex. I would be interested in how other countries handle this.
- eru 18y ago
  b.2) Or there are more than six or seven guys on the picture.
fauigerzigerk 18y ago
Having an argument about it is one thing, but there will be other startups that help people defend against this kind of aggregation and they are no less justified. For example, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to poison the databases of aggregators with inconsistent garbage. The data they sell is crap anyway and there will be laws against it if only on the basis of preventing the distribution of false information about people. It's too much work to keep this data clean and that's why they are going to get crushed for spreading lies about people.
coglethorpe 18y ago
I actually want people to see my LinkedIn page. It's designed to get me hired. I don't have a MySpace page.

jamiequint 18y ago

With Facebook news feed the data is limited by the fact that you have privacy settings and can limit the information you provide to a certain set of people which you choose.

AlexeyMK 18y ago
Yes, precisely. This is how Facebook moved to address the initial news feed/mini feed issues. The current start-up is likely to be under similar constraints; unless they're everybody's friend, only publicly accessible information should become available in the first place. And yet it still feels uncomfortable that the aggregation (basically a social-network google-ing of you) is so easy.

sfk 18y ago

I would say that aggregating publicly available data and making it searchable can be intrusive, even in seemingly harmless cases like Google Street View. A couple of remarks on your second paragraph. I often read the view (Slashdot) that if you are in public, or publicly visible, you have no expectation of privacy. This is false in many legislations. I cannot comment on U.S. law, but in Germany (and I presume in many other European countries), you need a person's consent before publishing their picture. Exceptions: a) You are in a public place and you are clearly not the center of the picture. b) You participated in a public event (where it is likely that pictures are taken). c) You are a public figure. Note that even in the case of a public figure you would not be allowed to publish pictures of them engaging in sex. I would be interested in how other countries handle this.

eru 18y ago
b.2) Or there are more than six or seven guys on the picture.

fauigerzigerk 18y ago

Having an argument about it is one thing, but there will be other startups that help people defend against this kind of aggregation and they are no less justified. For example, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to poison the databases of aggregators with inconsistent garbage. The data they sell is crap anyway and there will be laws against it if only on the basis of preventing the distribution of false information about people. It's too much work to keep this data clean and that's why they are going to get crushed for spreading lies about people.

coglethorpe 18y ago

I actually want people to see my LinkedIn page. It's designed to get me hired. I don't have a MySpace page.