hugoroy

11 ms·

61.
by hugoroy 13y ago
You're using our API? Please get in touch with us . We're a very small team and the project is very young. You can't really expect to use it like that without telling us and expect it to work well! (It's open data and
62.
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube: Do they own your content?(tosdr.org)
2 points by hugoroy 13y ago|0 comments
63.
by hugoroy 13y ago
"Laws may put more requirements than pressing a button." Are you sure? There are many kinds of contracts, not all of them have the same form requirements. I am sure you haven't read most of the contracts you are bound to, yet
64.
by hugoroy 13y ago
Hi. Exactly, we're trying to fix this with http://github.com/tosdr/ToSBack3 but this is not ready unfortunately :-(
65.
by hugoroy 13y ago
There are other solutions to fix this, http://tieguy.org/blog/2012/08/19/a-quick-note-on-conspicuou... However, if you think this is really the problem about ToS, I think you're missing the bigger p
66.
by hugoroy 13y ago
"a large step of trust by installing executable code into my browser." Have you read the page where you get the extension? http://tosdr.org/downloads.html : you can get the source code on http://github.
67.
by hugoroy 13y ago
http://tosdr.org/legal.html (linked from the bottom) But there are no specific terms around the service we provide to you. The only thing is a disclaimer: "this is not legal advice" this is just our opinions. It&#
68.
by hugoroy 13y ago
The spec without CDM does not do anything at all. This spec goes hand-in-hand with having a proprietary CDM. So ultimately, standardising this at the W3C means having all open web users install a proprietary CDM. Again, if this whole debate
69.
by hugoroy 13y ago
> For whatever reason Big Media aren't going to allow you access to their content without the DRM What is "Big Media"? This is just pure speculation not based on facts. There is plenty of high quality, paid-for content on the web alrea
70.
by hugoroy 13y ago
> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently. If they do not care, why are
71.
Simple experiment: Who’s tracking me online the most: Google or Facebook?(blogs.fsfe.org)
1 points by hugoroy 13y ago|0 comments
72.
by hugoroy 13y ago
We will do this when we have a solid way of archiving the terms (see http://github.com/tosdr/tosback3 ). So yes, it's planned.
73.
by hugoroy 13y ago
Oops. I didn't see the points for Spotify were already published. These are drafts for most of them!
74.
by hugoroy 13y ago
We don't consider their opaque deletion policy transparent. We only consider that they are transparent about some of their security (compared to most equivalents i'd say). See the whole thing (click "Expand"): > + Transparent security p
75.
by hugoroy 13y ago
Hi, thanks for your comment. For reference, here's what we're showing on tosdr.org: > Google can share your personal information with other parties > Google will share your personal information with other parties. For sensitive info
76.
Google ToS rated: “keeps your searches and logs for an undefined period of time”(tosdr.org)
78 points by hugoroy 13y ago|32 comments
77.
29C3 Videos(mirror.fem-net.de)
7 points by hugoroy 14y ago|2 comments
78.
by hugoroy 14y ago
Well, I'm sorry that this guy can't read. I have read many different copyright licenses, and this copyright license is not "boilerplate". You can have very different copyright licenses for such web services. You can get an overview at http
79.
by hugoroy 14y ago
No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > Instagram
80.
by hugoroy 14y ago
Huh? The share button in your desktop or your phone is not making requests to Facebook or Twitter, thus it's not tracking you. For instance, when you integrate twitter's buttons on your website, you must opt-in the "do not track" which mean
81.
by hugoroy 14y ago
These buttons are sources of data for Facebook, Twitter etc. That's how they track their user over the Web. So no incentive for them to remove them
82.
Just launched: 24-day funding campaign for the TL;DR of terms & privacy policies(indiegogo.com)
25 points by hugoroy 14y ago|3 comments
83.
by hugoroy 14y ago
Not at all ;) thanks (not a native English speaker)
84.
by hugoroy 14y ago
What do you mean?
85.
by hugoroy 14y ago
You're right. I was actually unsure at the time. The data comes from the EFF.
86.
by hugoroy 14y ago
thank you very much for reporting this. As we're all working on non-windows systems, we would not have found out by ourselves!
87.
by hugoroy 14y ago
Thanks for your feedback. The whole explanation can be found about cookies can be found here. Tell us what you think! http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#cookies > 5 GitHub requires cookies 5: means it's a low score. So it's considered
88.
by hugoroy 14y ago
Not necessary (see SoundCloud for instance). The whole problem is that the copyright license is just overbroad and not limited at all.
89.
by hugoroy 14y ago
tosback.org is no longer updated. Yes, the facebook TOS are difficult to archive: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.facebook.com/leg... issue on GH if you have a solution: https://github.com/pde/tosback2-data/issues/1
90.
by hugoroy 14y ago
That's a fair point. You can discuss this at https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/hI5Too_uDVk/discussi... I'll be happy to reply over there :) (if we spread the discussion too much, it will be lost)

More ›