3 ms·

Curious why spam is a concern for privacy regulators. Would you know why?

by zaidf 14y ago

DannyBee 14y ago
Because at least in Europe, they consider the right to be left alone part of privacy. If my privacy controls say you can't message me, you shouldn't be able to message me. Otherwise, they aren't privacy controls. It's not like you get to pull a name out of thin air and message it for a dollar, it tells you things about people you can't normally reach (IE normally have you blocked from sending messages), and lets you decide if you want to reach them anyway, despite the fact that you are normally blocked/put into other. The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." That important message could be "i'm stalking you, bitch", being sent from a throwaway facebook account. As the article points out it also allows you to send messages to people you aren't friends with, so you don't even have to have gotten them to friend you. Normally it would have gone into other and you'd likely never have looked.
- ewolf 14y ago
  I think you misinterpret "being left alone". In the sense of being able to do something on your own without anyone being able to see what you're doing — yes. But the reception of unwanted messages, while annoying, does not seem to interfere with privacy, since you can still dismiss those messages and thus not let the sender know anything about you.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree about whether privacy is just about whether the sender gets any info from you during a transaction[1]. [1] Though i think you can probably see this it the next step if this test is "successful". Recommending to advertisers that they spend X dollars to get into the inbox of X people who share Y interest.
- zaidf 14y ago
  The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." But you are dismissing a perfectly legitimate use. I had no idea there even existed an "Other" folder and when I did find out, there were a half dozen legitimate mails from longlost friends of various types. I can see the privacy concern here but to call the above "spin" is being ignorant to a very legitimate use case. The $1/msg seems like an interesting compromise - if someone legitimate really wanted to reach me, they probably wouldn't mind spending a dollar.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    I'm not dismissing it, i'm saying it's not legitimate as they had set up filtering (and probably why they changed the filtering settings along with this, as the blog post shows). If i have a setting that says "i only want to hear from friends", then i only want to hear from friends. That's the choice I am making about who i want to hear from. You can argue i'm not thinking this choice through, or am ignorant of the consequences, but that's not the same argument. If they want a setting for "I also want to hear from people who are willing to spend money to reach me" (or some better pr worded version of this), great, i'm not opposed to that.
    - toki5 14y ago
      This does seem dismissive to me. The entire point of this exercise is to address zaidf's use case, which is trying to attach importance to messages that are outside the realm of Facebook's "important" data points. If they aren't your friend, and they aren't a friend of your friends', but they still have an important message -- how can we identify this? The obvious hope here is that they can identify important messages by attaching a small (but real) cost to them, while limiting abuse by way of rates and maybe tweaking the cost. You may not want these messages, but the fact remains that there are important messages that go missed because they can't smartly be deemed "important" in the Facebook ecosystem. Maybe there are sinister intentions beneath the surface, but this is still a legitimate attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
      - 14y ago

Curious why spam is a concern for privacy regulators. Would you know why?

by zaidf 14y ago

Curious why spam is a concern for privacy regulators. Would you know why?

Because at least in Europe, they consider the right to be left alone part of privacy. If my privacy controls say you can't message me, you shouldn't be able to message me. Otherwise, they aren't privacy controls. It's not like you get to pull a name out of thin air and message it for a dollar, it tells you things about people you can't normally reach (IE normally have you blocked from sending messages), and lets you decide if you want to reach them anyway, despite the fact that you are normally blocked/put into other. The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." That important message could be "i'm stalking you, bitch", being sent from a throwaway facebook account. As the article points out it also allows you to send messages to people you aren't friends with, so you don't even have to have gotten them to friend you. Normally it would have gone into other and you'd likely never have looked.

ewolf 14y ago
I think you misinterpret "being left alone". In the sense of being able to do something on your own without anyone being able to see what you're doing — yes. But the reception of unwanted messages, while annoying, does not seem to interfere with privacy, since you can still dismiss those messages and thus not let the sender know anything about you.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree about whether privacy is just about whether the sender gets any info from you during a transaction[1]. [1] Though i think you can probably see this it the next step if this test is "successful". Recommending to advertisers that they spend X dollars to get into the inbox of X people who share Y interest.
zaidf 14y ago
The wonderful spin they put on this is: "For the receiver, this test allows them to hear from people who have an important message to send them." But you are dismissing a perfectly legitimate use. I had no idea there even existed an "Other" folder and when I did find out, there were a half dozen legitimate mails from longlost friends of various types. I can see the privacy concern here but to call the above "spin" is being ignorant to a very legitimate use case. The $1/msg seems like an interesting compromise - if someone legitimate really wanted to reach me, they probably wouldn't mind spending a dollar.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  I'm not dismissing it, i'm saying it's not legitimate as they had set up filtering (and probably why they changed the filtering settings along with this, as the blog post shows). If i have a setting that says "i only want to hear from friends", then i only want to hear from friends. That's the choice I am making about who i want to hear from. You can argue i'm not thinking this choice through, or am ignorant of the consequences, but that's not the same argument. If they want a setting for "I also want to hear from people who are willing to spend money to reach me" (or some better pr worded version of this), great, i'm not opposed to that.
  - toki5 14y ago
    This does seem dismissive to me. The entire point of this exercise is to address zaidf's use case, which is trying to attach importance to messages that are outside the realm of Facebook's "important" data points. If they aren't your friend, and they aren't a friend of your friends', but they still have an important message -- how can we identify this? The obvious hope here is that they can identify important messages by attaching a small (but real) cost to them, while limiting abuse by way of rates and maybe tweaking the cost. You may not want these messages, but the fact remains that there are important messages that go missed because they can't smartly be deemed "important" in the Facebook ecosystem. Maybe there are sinister intentions beneath the surface, but this is still a legitimate attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
    - 14y ago