Thank you, that was very well said.
Hell, use Gallery pics. Just contact people who submitted and get individual permissions before doing it.
This is not about privacy. It’s about selective anonymity. That’s a choice that solely belongs to the individual. Yeah, people post their own images all over the place on the web. Personal details, too. That’s their choice and not yours. They are welcome to such risks. Many people are not.
Sure, you can still create a browser plugin to do what you want. You can probably do it and not seek permission from the SDMB and Arnold’s site and neither probably can do much about it. But if you did I’m betting the brouhaha would still occur, even if the two site owners had no role in the combo. And there would be a number of photo removal requests instigated as well.
I don’t have a dog in the fight. I don’t have a picture on Arnold’s site. I choose not to do that. If I had made a decision to do so, it would have been with the full knowledge someone could manually decide to put two and two together. What makes this different is an automated process to put two and two together to effectively create a third database where selective anonymity is gone.
Different people and different generations view privacy, copyright and selective anonymity, well, differently. The technology is moving faster than we can can understand and appreciate it. Aggregating data from two or more different locations is a big deal. Google maps is just one example and thrives on it. But when it starts to include personal information, that’s when many people get hinky. Apps developers (or their bosses and lawyers) know this so they couch their toys in weasel words to get their users to just go along with it (I’m not saying you did.). Look how Facebook plays that game. Only after many people objected did they relent and reduce the obfuscation for changing one’s privacy settings. Yet FB still plays sleight of hand to aggregate personal information. FB knows far more people just don’t care, or are just plain stupid.
The concern with aggregating personal information is better known as PII. We do quite a bit of PII investigations at work. It’s a very hot subject because when people begin to appreciate it, they universally opt out (we’re on their side under the law and opting out is mandatory for us). But I digress.
We’re already seeing companies, government, you name it, using the mashups to investigate people for things far beyond most people are aware. In this jobs climate you can bet a Facebook account (or similar) has cost many an applicant a job offer, a mortgage loan, even insurance coverage. Your proposed app would have been in good company. I’m just concerned how many Dopers who thrive here with great posts exercising their personal choice of selective anonymity would remain here, knowing their selective anonymity posts no longer were.
They absolutely don’t owe us anything, but it would’ve been a nice courtesy. Similarly, having this discussion before any action was taken was a courtesy. Reaching any sort of understanding is made more difficult when one side basically says “No. No reason. Just no. Go away.”
That said, not every human decision is made on the basis of cold, calculating logic. Perhaps this was just an emotional response that people couldn’t rationally justify even if they wanted to.
It’s not any one person in particular, but the whole bunch of you combined. Arnold would rather (and I agree) have the SDMB Gallery stay the way it is and be trusted – insofar as any public-facing website can be trusted – rather than go through with an unpopular plugin and piss people off unnecessarily.
Fine with me, but I don’t believe the demand is there. If someone wants to prove to me otherwise, I could do that. I’m not going to bother starting a poll and/or emailing everyone; I just don’t have time for that.
I’m not sure I see the difference between “privacy” and “selective anonymity” – doesn’t privacy already imply selectivity? – but I absolutely understand the point you make about different generations and audiences having different expectations. That’s probably one of the big issues here, and why I emphasized “reasonable” expectations of privacy. Anyone can expect privacy in any situation, but whether that expectation is reasonable changes with the times and with technology. Keep up or lose your privacy; that’s just the way things work. Maybe this is why some of us consider the concerns irrational; they’re relics in an age when transparency is fast becoming the norm and active protection, not passive hope, is required to actually privatize any information.
IMO, the ideal solution to all this would be to educate people and make them aware of the likely consequences of their actions, not pander to the technophobe within them and help them continue to live in their privacy fantasyland. Not everyone is going to seek permission before doing something you don’t want with your public info; if that bothers you, you should’ve never made it available in the first place.
And Facebook is doing something different (if I understood their privacy fiascos correctly); they were making information available to additional parties that didn’t have access to them before (e.g., third-party websites were given access to personal info even if they weren’t a friend, etc.). That is different from what’s happening here: information that’s already public was being made more easily accessible, but the info wasn’t shown to anyone who couldn’t already access it before.
Very nice…
So all that has to be done is edit the script to apply only to the SDMB domain, then change the autoicon location to be the location of the user’s profile picture.
Now that would give the hamsters more work so a cache would need to be used as well, or an external site like Arnold’s could scrape the SDMB site once a month during a low traffic period for a list of people who have opted in, then put those images in a dedicated folder which the script would use.
Easy to say of course, but I’m not a programmer. In the meantime, I’ll just have to do it manually, for “users of interest”, and take the pics from Arnold site as is.
Oh hi I actually wrote the add-on. You should see all your faces! It’s glorious. I guess I won’t release it since I don’t want to upset anyone. Of course, now I have to wonder if those same people are upset anyway, now that one person can see their pictures right next to what they write.
This thread is absolutely fascinating - I am completely baffled by the emotional investments some people put into something so pointless. My god - I consider it a classic already.
Hear hear. Some of these reactions are whacky.
Can someone write an addon that pulls a randomly numbered image from a Google Images search of the username, and posts that in the thread? That would be fun. (Traci Lords may cause a few firings, mind you.)
ntucker you are a funny fucker indeed.
I want royalties for that shit.
Pay me my money you tucker!
i’m staring at you
I could go either way. It wouldn’t bother me, but if people who don’t want it feel as strongly as they seem to, it’s not worth it.
I’m cool with it, but I don’t mind the status quo either.
That “do you understand how the internet works” quote was from me. And I *still *seriously think that the people freaking out here *must not *understand, because they’re freaking out over something that could happen at any time, without warning. If you don’t want your picture associated with your posts, *you should not upload it anywhere that it’s connected with your username. **Period. ***That means you can’t *ever *upload anything to your profile here, and you can’t *ever *upload anything to a gallery site like Arnold’s.
That people were suddenly shocked, dismayed, horrified, and frightened that someone might be able to associate their pictures with their every posts says to me very clearly that they do not understand the internet.
Anybody could write an addon that will do exactly what this proposed one would have done, and they don’t have to tell you about it. If the idea of your photo being associated with your posts scares you, don’t post a damn photo in association with your username. I don’t see why this concept is so hard to grasp.
You are wrong. It’s as simple as that.
We grasp it. Now get over yourself.
Obviously you don’t – Shot From Guns isn’t the one who needs to “get over herself.”
I’m afraid she’s completely right. This isn’t someone searching around and finding your picture, it’s people purposely uploading a picture to be associated with their username and then suddenly being shocked that someone would do just that. This isn’t like an irrational fear of crowds, it’s taking a job at the county fair and telling everyone to stay back a few feet.
Unless someone has something pressing they really need to say, I’m going to ask a moderator to lock this thread. I think both sides have said all they can and there’s nothing further to be gained by this discussion.
Of course, feel free to start a greater privacy debate in MPSIMS or GD if ya like.
It’s kind of fascinating, actually. I understand that some people may now be thinking, “oh, when I uploaded my picture I hadn’t really thought about that sort of association being possible,” and deciding that they should remove their picture from the gallery. This just means you’re human and didn’t realize the implications of uploading your picture. It’s a bit cruel to say you don’t understand how the internet works in this instance – it’s more like you had a little lapse of judgment back when you decided to upload your picture. The part I’m laughing over is the fact that after the OP decides to scrap his add-on idea, many of these same people who were rethinking their lapse in judgement have apparently decided that it’s no longer a lapse in judgement, so leaving their pictures up there associated with their usernames is once again safe. If that’s your opinion, then I totally think it’s fair to say you have no idea how the internet works.
If “understanding the internet” means that I understand that anyone could get to my picture, download it, and put it on their own web page and jerk off to it, then yes, I understand the internet.
If “understanding the internet” means that I understood that someone would write code and disseminate it to everyone here, so it would pop up and appear with my every post, then perhaps I don’t understand the internet.
Or perhaps I don’t understand the intricacies of programming.