6 ms·

What do you mean? An API doesn’t automatically grant full access to your private data. It just provides an alternative way to access the data you have already c

What do you mean? An API doesn’t automatically grant full access to your private data. It just provides an alternative way to access the data you have already chosen to make public.

wuiheerfoj 3y ago
It doesn’t, but it makes it easier to mandate an API for ‘special government access’ when there’s already an API mandate in place
- aaomidi 3y ago
  That’s called a court order, and already happens all the time.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Not with an api
s1artibartfast 3y ago
This API grants full access to read and write your own personal data, or export anyone else's public data. I care less about the use case where I request my own private data. I care more about the use case where someone else can request any public data I shared, or someone else can export any private data I shared with them only.
- danaris 3y ago
  This API only grants access to data that the user connecting to it can already access by logging in via the website. You are misreading it.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly what I said?
    - danaris 3y ago
      Going back and rereading your top-level post, it seems like maybe it is? It's possible that the degree of outrage you demonstrated led me to misread that post as saying you thought it would allow anyone access to private information. It's quite clear to me from the wording you pasted there that the rules would only mandate that a logged-in user be able to access through the API all data that they could access by logging into the website. You know, exactly what would be necessary to build a third-party app. In general, I'm struggling to see how that reading of the proposed rules could actually lead to any kind of privacy concerns.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        A simple example of a privacy concern would be if you have a private Facebook account. Any of your friends behind your privacy wall can allow an API to export your data for public publishing or sale by a third party app. I post about an abortion on my private Facebook profile and a friend uses Facebook 2.0 app, Facebook 2.0 can publish that data for anyone to see on the world wide web, or sell it to advertisers, or anti-abortion groups.
        danaris 3y ago
        And Meta/"Facebook 1.0" can do the same with all your data that they have right now. That's an issue of what the terms of service allow and, potentially, of developer malfeasance. In fact, do you know if there's anything in the bill that would set rules or guidelines for use of the API? Because I think it would be pretty reasonable to require that third parties using the API adhere to certain restrictions, and "don't sell the data you get that way without the user's express, clearly-informed, consent" would be a pretty important one. Furthermore, I think we need regulations limiting what social media services themselves can do with data like that as well. And it may be that it would be more ideal if we didn't open up social media services to third-party clients with mandatory APIs until we do have that. But given the choice between the status quo, and only one of those improvements? I know which one I'd choose.
- clipsy 3y ago
  I know this is a very outdated, downright Luddite idea nowadays but perhaps you shouldn't publish something if you don't want it to be public?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The issue isn't with it being public, there she was with it being compiled and available to anyone who requests it. It is an access issue and question. For example, I understand that I can be recorded by people's home cameras everywhere I go. I wouldn't support Amazon and Google being legally obligated to turn over that information to anyone who requests it. I also don't think that any company that hosts public information should be required to turn over its entire database of public information in the digestible format at no cost to anyone who asks
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      Literally every single thing you post on Reddit gets cached nearly instantly. Stop expecting API limits to save you there. We’re beyond that. And honestly it’s better if we stop expecting privacy on public forums.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Why?
- bratbag 3y ago
  You understand what the word public means. Right?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I do. Public information doesn't mean compiled and available upon request. I understand that every conversation I have outside my home is public, but that doesn't mean I have to support every one of those conversations being recorded and delivered to anyone who requests it
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      The digital world isn’t “down the street”. It’s disingenuous to conflate the two.

What do you mean? An API doesn’t automatically grant full access to your private data. It just provides an alternative way to access the data you have already chosen to make public.

wuiheerfoj 3y ago

It doesn’t, but it makes it easier to mandate an API for ‘special government access’ when there’s already an API mandate in place

aaomidi 3y ago
That’s called a court order, and already happens all the time.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Not with an api

s1artibartfast 3y ago

This API grants full access to read and write your own personal data, or export anyone else's public data. I care less about the use case where I request my own private data. I care more about the use case where someone else can request any public data I shared, or someone else can export any private data I shared with them only.

danaris 3y ago
This API only grants access to data that the user connecting to it can already access by logging in via the website. You are misreading it.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly what I said?
  - danaris 3y ago
    Going back and rereading your top-level post, it seems like maybe it is? It's possible that the degree of outrage you demonstrated led me to misread that post as saying you thought it would allow anyone access to private information. It's quite clear to me from the wording you pasted there that the rules would only mandate that a logged-in user be able to access through the API all data that they could access by logging into the website. You know, exactly what would be necessary to build a third-party app. In general, I'm struggling to see how that reading of the proposed rules could actually lead to any kind of privacy concerns.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      A simple example of a privacy concern would be if you have a private Facebook account. Any of your friends behind your privacy wall can allow an API to export your data for public publishing or sale by a third party app. I post about an abortion on my private Facebook profile and a friend uses Facebook 2.0 app, Facebook 2.0 can publish that data for anyone to see on the world wide web, or sell it to advertisers, or anti-abortion groups.
      - danaris 3y ago
        And Meta/"Facebook 1.0" can do the same with all your data that they have right now. That's an issue of what the terms of service allow and, potentially, of developer malfeasance. In fact, do you know if there's anything in the bill that would set rules or guidelines for use of the API? Because I think it would be pretty reasonable to require that third parties using the API adhere to certain restrictions, and "don't sell the data you get that way without the user's express, clearly-informed, consent" would be a pretty important one. Furthermore, I think we need regulations limiting what social media services themselves can do with data like that as well. And it may be that it would be more ideal if we didn't open up social media services to third-party clients with mandatory APIs until we do have that. But given the choice between the status quo, and only one of those improvements? I know which one I'd choose.
clipsy 3y ago
I know this is a very outdated, downright Luddite idea nowadays but perhaps you shouldn't publish something if you don't want it to be public?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The issue isn't with it being public, there she was with it being compiled and available to anyone who requests it. It is an access issue and question. For example, I understand that I can be recorded by people's home cameras everywhere I go. I wouldn't support Amazon and Google being legally obligated to turn over that information to anyone who requests it. I also don't think that any company that hosts public information should be required to turn over its entire database of public information in the digestible format at no cost to anyone who asks
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Literally every single thing you post on Reddit gets cached nearly instantly. Stop expecting API limits to save you there. We’re beyond that. And honestly it’s better if we stop expecting privacy on public forums.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Why?
bratbag 3y ago
You understand what the word public means. Right?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I do. Public information doesn't mean compiled and available upon request. I understand that every conversation I have outside my home is public, but that doesn't mean I have to support every one of those conversations being recorded and delivered to anyone who requests it
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    The digital world isn’t “down the street”. It’s disingenuous to conflate the two.