Discussion in 'privacy problems' started by ronjor, Apr 24, 2017.
Shona Ghosh Apr. 24, 2017, 5:43 AM
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.
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.
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
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's the NRA that "thrives", not gun manufacturers.
Americans do love their guns.
FTC Finalizes Settlement with Company that Misled Consumers about how it Accesses and Uses their Email
December 17, 2019
So for doing this, they got nothing...
Separate names with a comma.