Tag Archives: privacy

Instagram backlash is Flickr’s gain

Tom Warren, of The Verge, agrees with me about Flickr gaining from this recent Instagram policy change:

With a nicely redesigned client and support for filters, Flickr is finally catching up to battle Instagram on the photo sharing front. And its dormant community of lapsed Pro users (who are required to pay a nominal fee each year) could be awakened after Instagram users realize they’re the product of advertisers. It could be a temporary backlash, the same type we witness whenever Facebook adjusts its news feed, but competitors are ready this time and Twitter and Flickr are waiting in the wings for a share of Instagram’s unhappy user base.

He calls what Flickr charges for its Pro account a “nominal fee” and for what you get I suppose it is. Warren states that Flickr Pro users, like myself, will come out of hiding and reup their accounts. That may be true but I don’t think we’ll see new users jettisoning from Instagram and signing up to Flickr as Pro users. I would, however, see them moving over in droves if there were a cheaper account level that stated, simply, that Flickr/Yahoo wouldn’t use their information for advertising purposes.

Your move Yahoo!.

Instagram’s new privacy policy

In short; Instagram is now going to share your information with its parent-company Facebook in order to serve more relevant ads. Instagram will share things like the places you visit, your interests (remember all those photos you’ve liked?), and even your photos in order to tailor advertising to you.

You can look at this any number of ways. On the one hand, if Instagram is free and we have to see advertisements in order to use it – wouldn’t it be great to see ads that you’d actually like to see rather than ads you really wouldn’t be interested in? On the other hand, it sort of stinks that the photos you share, the places you visit, and the people you know all become currency for Facebook.

This change goes into affect on January 16, 2013. The only way to opt-out of these changes is to literally delete your account.

Just when Instagram really started to become great, they go and make us think they are creepy.

Geofences by Flickr

Happily, Flickr is back at doing a little innovating in the photo space.

“Geofences are special locations that deserve their own geo privacy settings. Simply draw a circle on a map, choose a geo privacy setting for that area, and you’re done. Existing photos in that location are updated with your new setting, and any time you geotag a photo in that area, it gets that setting too.”

Geofences by Flickr

Merlin Mann quipped on Twitter:

“Flickr’s Geofences sound clever—but a little like writing “Definitely Not Where Money Is Hidden” on the one drawer you’ve locked.”

He’s right. Flickr will likely not make a dime with this feature alone. But getting back to its innovative roots is exactly what Flickr needs to do. And if it takes them being uprooted from their offices and working at a co-worker’s dinner table in order for that to happen, I say that Flickr Management should set fire to their offices immediately. They need to be doing stuff like this more regularly and letting people know about it exactly as they’ve done with this feature.

/via Code: Flickr Developer Blog

Google DNS, privacy, and you

Google launched its public DNS offering yesterday. Immediate reactions were “ooo, aaahhh, sweeet!” because we all know Google will nail the technology aspects of an fast, open DNS. Immediately following those reactions, however, came the “Oh great, now they know more about me!” statements.

But then came this statement by Steven Frank of Panic (whom I interviewed in September of this year):

“Yes, but have you ever read the privacy policy for your _current_ DNS? I know I haven’t.”

This has Google’s public DNS casting a slightly different shadow now doesn’t it? Your ISP, while they probably do have a policy for privacy in place, has more than likely never shared that policy with you. Or, even if they have, you may not have read it.

Some people took Steven’s statement to mean that ISPs and other DNS providers do not have privacy policies. That isn’t how I take the statement at all and it isn’t how he meant it. He specifically said, “have you ever read the privacy policy from your current DNS”? He didn’t say anything about there not being any to read.

For the last few years I’ve used OpenDNS. They have a privacy policy right here. But, as Steven predicted, I’ve never read it. I’ve never thought about reading it. I was never worried about OpenDNS’ intentions with the data. So why would I be afraid of Google? They have my email, my documents, my calendar, all of my search history, my ad revenue, etc. etc.

What would I care if they have a log of where I’ve gone online? I don’t.

Bad Tiger, good Tiger

Remember what I said about leaving Tiger Woods alone? Remember why I said to leave him alone? In case you don’t, here’s an excerpt.

“He is keeping personal matters personal and he knows his rights – I’d say that is a role model to look up to, regardless of what happened. But, this silence will not last long I fear. He’ll be pressured to the point where he’ll have to say something just to get it all behind him.”

Well, that moment has come. He’s admitted to “transgressions” in a statement that he released as a PDF.

So, bad Tiger for doing anything wrong. Every man should be held accountable for his actions – especially by his family. But here’s the bit where he agrees with me.

“But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don’t share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one’s own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.”

Good Tiger.

Leave Tiger Woods and all other celebrities alone

George Vecsey “reporting” for the New York Times has a terrible piece about Tiger Woods’ not being very forthcoming about an accident he recently had right outside his own home. Vecsey goes off on Tiger simply because he feels his pen (err, keyboard) is mightier than Woods’ driver. To Vecsey I say; you’re an idiot.

It doesn’t matter what I say in this post about how I think we should just leave celebrities the heck alone. Because people will continue to watch the news, buy newspapers with tabloid-esque headlines on them, and want to see the latest bathing suit photos of this year’s top celebs. It is disgusting.

Ryan Irelan agrees, who cares?. Who cares why Tiger hit a fire hydrant right outside his home? The media likes to claim that he has a responsibility to say why because he’s “looked up to” and is “the world’s most famous athlete”. I don’t buy that. He’s a human American male. He has the exact same rights and obligations as I do.

He is keeping personal matters personal and he knows his rights – I’d say that is a role model to look up to, regardless of what happened. But, this silence will not last long I fear. He’ll be pressured to the point where he’ll have to say something just to get it all behind him.