Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2015 13:03 UTC
Multimedia, AV

An ill-timed Spotify privacy policy update has generated an online backlash against the music streaming service just days after the messy Ashley Madison leak. With privacy firmly in the minds of internet users this week, Wired jumped straight on Spotify's new policy to brand it an "eerie" agreement "you can't do squat about."

My CDs never ask me to agree to a privacy policy.

Order by: Score:
Investors Want Their Money Back?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Aug 2015 13:21 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I got a prompt to agree to it last night and I'm pleased I didn't. This is enough to make me want to jump off. Just plonk something in the privacy policy and get people to click agree. Meh.

They're obviously hoping to harvest some additional data they can use and sell on.

Reply Score: 6

youtube
by mastiff2 on Fri 21st Aug 2015 13:29 UTC
mastiff2
Member since:
2015-08-18

Been using youtube as my portable and omnipresent playlist host for half a decade.

Works.

Reply Score: 2

Childporn?
by WereCatf on Fri 21st Aug 2015 13:34 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

If a 15-year old teen has Spotify installed and it goes and uploads questionable pictures from the kid's phone to the company's servers will they have just committed a crime by spreading CP?

Reply Score: 1

To Thom
by rmeyers on Fri 21st Aug 2015 13:43 UTC
rmeyers
Member since:
2009-12-16

" My CDs never ask me to agree to a privacy policy."

Not yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: To Thom
by jburnett on Fri 21st Aug 2015 14:06 UTC in reply to "To Thom"
jburnett Member since:
2012-03-29

No, but some of them will attempt to rootkit you computer.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: To Thom
by r00kie on Fri 21st Aug 2015 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: To Thom"
r00kie Member since:
2009-12-10

Don't worry about that, Win10 will not let those rootkits work so all is well. /s

Reply Score: 1

The first link is broken
by Savior on Fri 21st Aug 2015 14:23 UTC
Savior
Member since:
2006-09-02

...there is an extra double quotation mark in "href".

Reply Score: 2

shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

to Apple Music.

I suppose that they have to do something to try to generate a profit.

Reply Score: 2

Operating System's involvement
by Alfman on Fri 21st Aug 2015 15:06 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Spotify is promoting slimy business practices, and there are no excuses for that...

However I view this as much a technical fault of the android OS that it doesn't permit users to control what apps have access to. Google has opportunities to fix the tide of privacy invading apps, and some good souls at google were even working on it:

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/google-disables-privacy-con...

Privacy enabling features like this really do make a difference, but instead of developing them further, they were yanked. Obviously the project didn't have the approval of executives who squashed it immediately when they got wind of it. It just shows where google stands on the matter, they side against users being in control of their own privacy. And in my opinion they're equal partners with developers like Spotify in this invasion of user privacy.

Edit: Can someone say if IOS gives users better control over what apps are allowed to see?

Edited 2015-08-21 15:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Operating System's involvement
by mmrezaie on Fri 21st Aug 2015 15:48 UTC in reply to "Operating System's involvement"
mmrezaie Member since:
2006-05-09

It doesn't!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Operating System's involvement
by Morgan on Fri 21st Aug 2015 18:28 UTC in reply to "Operating System's involvement"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Edit: Can someone say if IOS gives users better control over what apps are allowed to see?


It does. Whenever an app is about to try to access my location, or pictures, camera, microphone, etc., I get a modal dialog asking permission. Between that and the explicit permissions displayed in the App Store before purchase, right now it's better protection than on Android.

This article explains it better than I can:

http://qz.com/241243/this-seemingly-trivial-detail-reveals-the-prof...

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

It does. Whenever an app is about to try to access my location, or pictures, camera, microphone, etc., I get a modal dialog asking permission. Between that and the explicit permissions displayed in the App Store before purchase, right now it's better protection than on Android.
This article explains it better than I can:


Thanks for that information. Given that, I agree apple's approach to privacy is much better. Do you know if this also applies to apple's own apps too? Or does apple override privacy controls in it's own apps?

Making privacy difficult for users who want it, as google does, is wrong. Yet apple restricting what owners can install on their own devices is also wrong. I just wish we could get a mainstream OS that didn't require us to compromise on our values in one way or another. Such is life I guess.

Edited 2015-08-22 04:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you know if this also applies to apple's own apps too?


I don't believe it does, but I think it has a lot to do with practicality. For example, the browser needs network access, the messaging app needs access to your messages, the photos app needs access to your photos, the camera app needs access to the camera hardware, and so on. Basically, when you buy an iDevice, you're already placing your trust with Apple for the basic functionality of the device, and to be fair the same can be said of Android devices.

I just wish we could get a mainstream OS that didn't require us to compromise on our values in one way or another.


I'm with you all the way there. Maemo was a great OS for its time, and the N900 was pretty decent hardware, but it was never mainstream. I wish we could have something like that now, but even the Neo900 project won't ever be more than a niche of a niche market. FirefoxOS and Ubuntu Touch have glaring security and privacy issues, not to mention technical hurdles, and they are a fraction of a percent of the market.

The best we can do is try to convince the market leaders to improve their products and compete with each other for our attention and money. I'd love to see a real third competitor come in and shake things up (as much as I love Windows Phone, it never was much competition) and force Apple and Google to innovate rather than iterate.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

I don't believe it does, but I think it has a lot to do with practicality. For example, the browser needs network access, the messaging app needs access to your messages, the photos app needs access to your photos, the camera app needs access to the camera hardware, and so on. Basically, when you buy an iDevice, you're already placing your trust with Apple for the basic functionality of the device, and to be fair the same can be said of Android devices.



Well, I don't see why it has to be impractical. Users authorize apps once and the user's choice can be remembered. If apple do indeed make exceptions for their own apps, what bothers me about that is the double standard: "asking for user consent is too impractical for our own apps, but that's good enough for your apps".

I don't like commercial biases to be built into the OS, but I have to get used to the fact that it's happening across the board, certainly windows 10, even ubuntu.

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The last time I ran Maps, it did ask for permission to access my location, and to access it in the background too. Weather did the same. I think there's a line though. I mean, would I really want contacts or camera to ask for permission to access the very things they're named for?

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

darknexus,

The last time I ran Maps, it did ask for permission to access my location, and to access it in the background too. Weather did the same. I think there's a line though.


Going by what you are saying, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I mean, would I really want contacts or camera to ask for permission to access the very things they're named for?


Well, the exact same logic applies to all apps. To be fair, apple would have to add exceptions based on how apps are named "It's obviously a camera app, no need to ask for user consent". But I don't think that's a good idea. Applying a security model inconsistently adds confusion and is not ideal for security. Good security is consistent.


It's good that IOS is giving users a say in blocking app access to user data. Google would follow suit if it cared about user privacy (which it doesn't, I know). It's just not clear to me that these security controls are being applied consistently and without bias.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I think there's a line though. I mean, would I really want contacts or camera to ask for permission to access the very things they're named for?


The built in Apple apps (if we're talking iOS)? No, they shouldn't have to ask permission for their raison d'être. But if I download a third party app, I think it should be completely untrusted and have to ask specific permission, even though Apple Store apps are supposedly fully vetted by Apple.

And I think it should be the same way on Android. For example, on my gaming tablet I was going to install a game that is offline only, and is played via touch screen only. It claimed it needed camera, WiFi, microphone, and contacts access. Nope, sorry, not getting installed. That kind of blanket access is completely unnecessary and was likely part of a revenue scheme, but they can get away with it on Android because it only asks prior to installation. Users who install a lot of apps and aren't security or privacy conscious end up with permission fatigue and just tap "OK" automatically.

Reply Score: 2

Mix Tape!!
by RJay75 on Fri 21st Aug 2015 15:25 UTC
RJay75
Member since:
2010-05-18

I think someone jumped the gun and released the new privacy policy to early. Seems to be worded so they can bring back the 'Mix Tape' complete with cover art that you can send to that certain contact.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Yasu
by Yasu on Fri 21st Aug 2015 15:50 UTC
Yasu
Member since:
2014-05-15

Illegal download is still the way to go then huh ...

Reply Score: 3

All of this is social
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 21st Aug 2015 16:22 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't want my music to be social. All of that playlist sharing is worthless to me. My friends have terrible taste in music. I don't need an app to tell me that. They have other redeeming qualities, but music appreciation is not one of them.

Reply Score: 9

Clarifications on the policy
by WereCatf on Fri 21st Aug 2015 17:40 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

“Let me be crystal clear here: If you don’t want to share this kind of information, you don’t have to. We will ask for your express permission before accessing any of this data – and we will only use it for specific purposes that will allow you to customize your Spotify experience.”


http://www.wired.com/2015/08/spotify-clears-up-its-privacy-policy/

Reply Score: 3

RE: Clarifications on the policy
by Yasu on Sat 22nd Aug 2015 07:04 UTC in reply to "Clarifications on the policy"
Yasu Member since:
2014-05-15

What creeps me out is the ongoing trend to first be the good and cool guy, respecting your privacy and such. Then when you get a nice reputation and a brand name, you really quietly change this stance in order to get some extra cash.

No doubt Spotify will reverse this policy and say they are sorry and won't do this again. But I bet they will. They have showed the world now that they are prepared to vacuum your information for very shady reasons in order to make more bucks. Then what will stop them from trying again in a later date when they think they can get away with it?

I don't want to keep being worried that what is good today might be bad tomorrow. I want to be able to at least trust a streaming service not to be a privacy peep. I guess that's just wishful thinking.

I will never use Spotify again. I will go back to my illegal downloads. I know that is wrong, but at least I'm not selling out my friends too in the process.

Reply Score: 2

I buy music and back up my files.
by shmerl on Fri 21st Aug 2015 18:12 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Spotify? Never used it, as I strongly dislike DRMed services. Is anyone surprised that they are hostile to privacy?

Reply Score: 2

mmrezaie Member since:
2006-05-09

Spotify? Never used it, as I strongly dislike DRMed services. Is anyone surprised that they are hostile to privacy?


I think saying the are hostile to privacy is just too much over-reaction. They said they will ask every time the app wants to access those data. Although it would have been better in my opinion for them to let user to just disable all this social crap.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Why music distribution application should access your data or even ask for it? That's ridiculous.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Because music streaming services are a dime a dozen, and its still difficult to make a profit. So they need another revenue stream, and another differentiater: social.

VP cash bonus for social, Marketing as well.

But yeah, IMHO, its dumb as hell. Its the rebirth of apple's ping.

Reply Score: 3

CDs
by Kver on Fri 21st Aug 2015 18:32 UTC
Kver
Member since:
2012-07-08

You may not worry about your CDs having a privacy policy, but it would be nice to "like" your CDs on Facebook now and then, they're such a well-rounded medium. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: CDs
by ilovebeer on Fri 21st Aug 2015 23:55 UTC in reply to "CDs"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Why would that be nice? Nobody gives a shit what CDs you "like". It's sad that "social networking" is used to share the most unimportant & useless stuff people have to offer. I don't care what anybody had for lunch. I don't care about the constant & steady flow of worthless hash-tagging. I'll be 100% fine having not seen a screenshot of what song you're listening to. This list could go on forever but there's no point. Some people act like they can't live without their "social networking", and some people live perfectly fine without it (like me).

I do have a request though.. That lawmakers make it legal to slap the shit out of people who hold up traffic because they feel like looking at Facebook and Twitter updates is more important than, you know, driving their car & watching the road.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: CDs
by darknexus on Sat 22nd Aug 2015 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE: CDs"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I do have a request though.. That lawmakers make it legal to slap the shit out of people who hold up traffic because they feel like looking at Facebook and Twitter updates is more important than, you know, driving their car & watching the road.

When the lawmakers themselves are a good portion of the people doing just that? Amusing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CDs
by ilovebeer on Sat 22nd Aug 2015 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CDs"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"I do have a request though.. That lawmakers make it legal to slap the shit out of people who hold up traffic because they feel like looking at Facebook and Twitter updates is more important than, you know, driving their car & watching the road.

When the lawmakers themselves are a good portion of the people doing just that? Amusing.
"

You know whats really pathetic about those people? The number of them who do that are by far grown adults. People certainly old enough to know better and be responsible enough not to do it. It seems like 30s-40s women are easily the worst offenders.

Edited 2015-08-22 16:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: CDs
by darknexus on Sat 22nd Aug 2015 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CDs"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You know whats really pathetic about those people? The number of them who do that are by far grown adults. People certainly old enough to know better and be responsible enough not to do it. It seems like 30s-40s women are easily the worst offenders.

I've noticed. I don't know what is worse: those people or the ones that seem to think their iPhone's a damned boombox. I can't figure out which annoy me more.

Reply Score: 2

10% quality, 100% bs
by ezraz on Sun 23rd Aug 2015 23:24 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

spotify -- "we've compressed the life out of these files. don't listen too close, don't listen too long, don't play it from anything better than your phone.... and now we are tracking and selling your profile to every advertiser and any government agency that asks, just like Facebook"

this is your music, why give them all of that for your music? buy some damn music again, people, through retail, for the good of the world!

the streamers are in a bad way - their royalty rates will be going back up, the second they load up the ad inventory people will stop listening, and they've driven the price down far too low.

their pitch could have been to the real music lovers, and they could have offered the world's entire catalog of music for $30-40 per month, not $3-4 per month. but they lowered the price and set the value of their service at an unsustainable price.

Reply Score: 2