3 ms·

If the data is on facebook servers, it is on private property and they have every right to decide who has access to their private property.

by tomjen 19y ago

run4yourlives 19y ago
I think the point is that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the whole "social network" idea.
- pg 19y ago
  I think it violates a principle broader than that. I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. As far as I know, Google meets this standard. I'm not saying that sites have to give users all the information they have about them, btw-- just that they should allow users to retrieve information they have supplied or been given by others. E.g. an email app should let you export (or at least not deliberatebly block you from exporting) emails you've sent and received. Contact info of people who've added you as friends seems in the same class as email sent to you.
  - icky 19y ago
    > I think it violates a principle broader than that. I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. As far as I know, Google meets this standard. While visting there, I've seen at least one whiteboard with a list of principles from (IIRC) their CEO, with "Don't hold users' data hostage" underlined.
  - run4yourlives 19y ago
    > I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. I think so as well, but given that the sanctity of data ownership is a rather new phenomena - for example, you wouldn't ask your bank for all your transaction history - I can give that they may not feel that they are obliged to return it.
    - plinkplonk 19y ago
      "you wouldn't ask your bank for all your transaction history - I can give that they may not feel that they are obliged to return it." huh? Here in India you can ask any bank for your transaction history and they'll give it to you. You might have to go to the local branch and show id and wait while they print out the transaction history, but you'll get it for sure.
      - run4yourlives 19y ago
        Well, you could probably do that here too, although they might make you pay for anything historical. I was thinking more from a web-app standpoint. It's not the greatest of examples, put the point is that the bank doesn't see themselves as under any real obligation to view your transactions as anything but their data.
    - cstejerean 19y ago
      can't vouch for all banks but I can tell you that my credit card company recently sent me (at my request) over 2 years of statements free of charge (came in about 24 envelopes in the mail).
karzeem 19y ago
That's roughly analogous to saying that Citibank, because your money is in their vaults, may come up with whatever conditions it pleases for you to access that money. It violates the spirit with which people agree to let a company store their property. Many hospitals, actually, don't let you access your own medical chart. My guess, though, is that's more about doctors wanting freedom to write snarky comments without fear of retribution than it is about fear of competition.
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  no, you have a contract with citibank and there are laws in place that govern what they can do. technically, he is probably more than correct about the "private property". In some "terms and service" listing I'm sure they state that using the service means they can do X, Y, Z with your data. You agree to it implicitly. But talk of rights on private property and abusive terms is ridiculous for a service based company. The whole point is to make something users wants. Users don't want enemas or prison.

If the data is on facebook servers, it is on private property and they have every right to decide who has access to their private property.

by tomjen 19y ago

If the data is on facebook servers, it is on private property and they have every right to decide who has access to their private property.

run4yourlives 19y ago

I think the point is that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the whole "social network" idea.

pg 19y ago
I think it violates a principle broader than that. I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. As far as I know, Google meets this standard. I'm not saying that sites have to give users all the information they have about them, btw-- just that they should allow users to retrieve information they have supplied or been given by others. E.g. an email app should let you export (or at least not deliberatebly block you from exporting) emails you've sent and received. Contact info of people who've added you as friends seems in the same class as email sent to you.
- icky 19y ago
  > I think it violates a principle broader than that. I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. As far as I know, Google meets this standard. While visting there, I've seen at least one whiteboard with a list of principles from (IIRC) their CEO, with "Don't hold users' data hostage" underlined.
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  > I think everything you store in a web app, you ought to be able to get back out. I think so as well, but given that the sanctity of data ownership is a rather new phenomena - for example, you wouldn't ask your bank for all your transaction history - I can give that they may not feel that they are obliged to return it.
  - plinkplonk 19y ago
    "you wouldn't ask your bank for all your transaction history - I can give that they may not feel that they are obliged to return it." huh? Here in India you can ask any bank for your transaction history and they'll give it to you. You might have to go to the local branch and show id and wait while they print out the transaction history, but you'll get it for sure.
    - run4yourlives 19y ago
      Well, you could probably do that here too, although they might make you pay for anything historical. I was thinking more from a web-app standpoint. It's not the greatest of examples, put the point is that the bank doesn't see themselves as under any real obligation to view your transactions as anything but their data.
  - cstejerean 19y ago
    can't vouch for all banks but I can tell you that my credit card company recently sent me (at my request) over 2 years of statements free of charge (came in about 24 envelopes in the mail).

karzeem 19y ago

That's roughly analogous to saying that Citibank, because your money is in their vaults, may come up with whatever conditions it pleases for you to access that money. It violates the spirit with which people agree to let a company store their property. Many hospitals, actually, don't let you access your own medical chart. My guess, though, is that's more about doctors wanting freedom to write snarky comments without fear of retribution than it is about fear of competition.

ivankirigin 19y ago
no, you have a contract with citibank and there are laws in place that govern what they can do. technically, he is probably more than correct about the "private property". In some "terms and service" listing I'm sure they state that using the service means they can do X, Y, Z with your data. You agree to it implicitly. But talk of rights on private property and abusive terms is ridiculous for a service based company. The whole point is to make something users wants. Users don't want enemas or prison.