People are freaking out because email decluttering service Unroll.me sold their data to Uber

Discussion in 'privacy problems' started by ronjor, Apr 24, 2017.

  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    75,842
    Location:
    Texas
    Shona Ghosh Apr. 24, 2017, 5:43 AM
     
  2. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,879
    Yes, that was a surprise for many. But not unexpected, for the more cynical.

    And there's a fundamental issue that's truly freaky. So let's see. You like the idea of a service that manages commercial email. Mail lists and such. But in order to get that, you must allow full access to email accounts.

    I really don't get why people would be OK with that. Somehow the possibility of a cleaner inbox doesn't seem worth the risk of identity theft.
     
  3. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    11,965
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes exactly, I also don't get it. But I really think it's unacceptable what Unroll.me did, nice reminder to not blindly trust web services.
     
  4. mood

    mood Updates Team

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    17,483
    Operator of Email Management Service Settles FTC Allegations that it Deceived Consumers About How it Accesses and Uses Emails
    Unrollme Inc. shared users’ email receipts for use in market research analytics products
    August 8, 2019

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...management-service-settles-ftc-allegations-it
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Are they serious? They whine because they don't read the agreement...you dont read, means you accept all the terms, that is it.
    No turning back, no complains nobody forced you to subscribe.

    And about that proposition:
    "We read your email and sell the data we gather"
    It is unbearably naive and laughable...
    If you put it big and bold, nobody will use your service lol.
    Do he knows what business is?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2019
  6. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,757
    Location:
    UK
    I think the problem here is the very large gap between is and ought. Many people, myself included, have an evidently naive expectation of business behaviour, like it would be ethical and not scummy. After all, that's what I did in business (or at least did my best to have delighted customers). Plus, no-one has time to read the agreements, and there "ought" to be consumer protection with standard contract clauses and things which are disallowed whatever the Tos say. That isn't the case, because regulators are asleep and colluding.

    Of course, caveat emptor, and what do you expect, for free?

    However, the "is" is clearly scummy, so that's the expectation I'd now have in transacting with these businesses (which I avoid).
     
  7. guest

    guest Guest

    The agreement is basically there to protect the author from being sued, not to protect the consumer.

    Business arent made for charity, they are made to get money from you.
    Now, obviously, some owners can be nice and value their consumers, but what if they get almost bankrupt and suddenly a data broker tell them "start collecting datas from your consumers, sell them to us, you will get your business back in shape in no time ", I bet few will refuse.
     
  8. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,757
    Location:
    UK
    The business is typically in the cross-fire, because even when you want to behave well, you have to include all kinds of legal rear-protection which makes the terms inscrutable. The laws and regulations that do exist are not fit for purpose. Plus, you're effectively undercut by those whose business practices are less ethical.

    I do understand that businesses make money; however, we're in a bad situation where we have a nasty marketplace where people don't feel safe - they aren't safe! We are rewarding undesirable business models that do not benefit the people they claim to serve, whilst sucking up their intellectual property in micro-amounts. Ultimately, that's bad for business too if you're just accepting lowest-common-denominator behavior and misleading/opaque terms. I think it's very clear that a new deal is needed following the unprincipled land-grab, that's normal in a new market place. But I don't think you should reward the unscrupulous businesses who have used the vacuum to monopolise through networking effects. I don't even think that the essentially unregulated business have even produced quality services, it's mediocre at best because they've been focussing on the land-grab, not longer-term value.
     
  9. guest

    guest Guest

    businesses are businesses and not duties or laws, you aren't forced to buy or use their products, if unscrupulous businesses thrive, it is because they have customers and those dont care.
    Those customers are the one to blame, not the company who just proposed their services/products.
    should cigarettes/alcohol companies should been sued because people dies by willingly consuming those ? i dont think so, blame the consumer for his health carelessness.

    in example, american guns manufacturers thrives and have ridiculous political power, why? because they have huge amount of customers and are allowed to lobby. if they didnt have such customer base, they wont have any power.

    It is too easy (and so profitable) to put the blame on companies.
     
  10. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    9,024
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    This.
     
  11. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,879
    Well, selling heroin is generally illegal.

    And generally, I believe that tort law is a good thing. Being evil should have consequences.

    I also believe that the "corporate veil" should be less protective, and that officers and knowing investors should face criminal prosecution.
     
  12. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    As far as I know companies manufacturing pistols etc for civilians don't have much money for effective gun lobbying. Generally speaking they are not rich compared to Big Tech companies.
    Companies/government contractors that sell heavy equipment such as tanks, jet fighters etc for army is completely different story.
     
  13. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,879
    It's the NRA that "thrives", not gun manufacturers.

    Americans do love their guns.
     
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.