|
Search this group's discussions
|
Privacy Wars: I want access to MY data - always.
|
Dear Flickr Goddess,
i would like to ask for a very simple feature:
I want access to ALL my photos ALL the time, unless i canceled / deleted my account.
A very simple solution:
I would like to a see a separation between the public view of my photo stream and how i with my account see the photo stream.
My view always includes all my pictures. It is my data, and i should always have access to it.
The public view for everyone else can be limited to the 200 pictures.
I don't mind all the other limitations on the upload and set's etc. But i would like to have full access to MY data,
I am totally willing to pay for sharing. To give everybody the possibility to access my pictures. But i am NOT willing to pay to get access to MY data,
Why?
Well, i put "Privacy Wars" into the topic for a reason: With the recent privacy issues on Facebook, more and more people started to realize to what extend a company has control over their data.
The asynchronous access to my photos and the resulting dependency is a major problem of the current privacy issues.
With a similar dependency Facebook is able to adjust the privacy terms and therefor control the users data.
In my opinion Flickr always had a very good understanding of sharing and privacy.
90% of the decisions Flickr made in the last years related to that topic where transparent and comprehensible. They in general went into the direction to empower the user.
I know that some people at Flickr understand the current issues of the "Privacy Wars" very well. It would be wonderful if Flickr could send out the right signal to the Flickr Users.
"We understand: You need the free access to your data, we give it to you".
Even if that means to adjust the Terms of Services.
Thanks
occam
Originally posted at 5:41PM, 10 June 2010 PDT
(permalink)
occ4m edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
If you don't want to lose access to anything, stop uploading at 200.
Also worth noting that content is only hidden from your photostream. You can continue to access it in groups and via searches.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am fully aware of the limitations of Flickr. Even of the "tricks" to get around some.
I am also aware that it would be possible for Flickr, to create a backup tool, that always gives me full access to all my photos.
But that's not the real point. It's more a question of a "good policy" or "good attitude". A question of "awareness".
The main issue here is the dependency.
I am happy if Flickr gives me extra features if i pay. But i am not happy if i have to pay to access my data.
Such a dependency became a huge problem with Facebook and there is nothing that would prevent Yahoo from doing similar changes to the Terms of Services or the Privacy Policy of Flickr.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm not sure I understand the request...
It seems you do understand the limitations of a free account versus a pro account (unlike many users), but if I'm reading correctly, you want some of those limitations lifted?
For instance, free accounts currently do not have access to the "original" image sizes, or any image on the photostream beyond the most recent 200. You'd like those limitations removed?
Your main reason is "to access my data," so I'll speak to that. All your data should still be available, through several means:
1) All your images, both originals and formatted versions, are certainly still on your computer, as well as a backup such as CDs or an external drive.
2) All your online images are still accessible through Flickr, as Patrick pointed out (through groups or tag searches) -- other than the full original size.
Note: my wife has a free account with 800+ images, all of them accessible through her group and searchable on the site...
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
But you don't have to pay to access your data. You can remove enough images at any time to access the hidden images. Or you could delete your account completely, which would remove your hidden images from Flickr's servers. That seems to cover your "privacy" concerns.
If you're not happy to pay to access your content, then you should look into a free service that does what you want. Why should Flickr provide you with a service for free, when they're a business and want to charge you money for said service?
AND the limitations of the free trial version are clear and available before you even join?
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
The Searcher edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
With the recent privacy issues on Facebook, more and more people started to realize to what extend a company has control over their data.
Recall that people willingly hand over data to companies such as Flickr and Facebook. No one's making them do it. If Flickr has your data, it's because you gave it to them. If you don't trust them with it, then don't give it to them in the first place.
"We understand: You need the free access to your data, we give it to you".
That statement has absolutely nothing very little to do with privacy. If you're uploading photos to Flickr, you must have access to them on some other computer(s) and the relevant rights to those photos. With the exception of poor backup practices and utter catastrophes (neither of which can be blamed on Flickr), you should be able to access those photos without any problems on some other computer.
It sounds like you're actually looking for some way to take action if Flickr decides to change how it shares your photos. Presumably, you want to make sure your "private" information, whatever that may be, stays "private." As far as know, solutions already exist here:
(1) Deleting your account deletes all your photos, videos, and metadata from Flickr. Flickr can't share what it doesn't have. Drastic, I know, but at least the escape hatch is there.
(2) Each member retains the copyrights on the photos they've uploaded, so I'm inclined to believe that Flickr can't get around or change (1) in any effective way.
(Aside: I don't know about comments that one leaves on Flickr, but the original post seems to be focussed on one's photos.)
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
kitby edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
Perhaps a way to satisfy the OP's request would be to add to the Organizr a list with multiple fields, which allow batch changes.
Let's imagine that this person has a free account and 350 images in his photostream, which means that 150 of them aren't displayed.
The list could include a miniature caption, the Flickr title and a number of checkboxes:
- bring to front (move to the visible photostream),
- bring to back (move to the invisible photostream)
- delete (permanently)
The person makes all the changes and clicks on Proceed at the bottom of the page. You may add a pop-up warning which says that any deletion is permanent if you want to. And voilà, problem solved.
You may also use this system to make multiple downloads of the originals, since quite a lot of people seem to be asking for this. All you have to do is to include a "add to cart" checkbox. When you're finished, click on the cart, review it, click on download, and the system generates a zip file which is downloaded to your computer.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There is a very simple solution:
I would like to a see a separation between the public view of my photo stream and how i with my account see the photo stream.
My view always includes all my pictures. It is my data, and i should always have access to it.
The public view for everyone else can be limited to the 200 pictures.
Yes, by that logic i should also have access to my photos in original size, using the same mechanism of differentiation between me and everybody else. However, this only applies if the user ever had pro account.
I edited my posting to clarify this.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A system like that would allow anyone to use Flickr for unlimited personal photo storage without charge. I can't see much incentive for Flickr to do that.
And as others have said, you always have access to all your photos on your own computer. Flickr isn't taking that away from you. It just limits, with plenty of advance notice, what you can see on the Flickr site if you don't pay for the service.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is silly. Just pay up.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you want to keep the 'public' view to 200, just anything over 200 private that way you see all your pics and the 'public' only sees 200.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, this is not a privacy issues by itself.
But as i said, the main problem here is the dependency.
Let's have a common example:
A user buys a pro account before going on a holiday trip. The user only takes the camera and the USB cable and is using a Internet Cafe to upload all original images to Flickr. The small flash disk from the camera can not keep all the photos.
In this situation the user totally depends on Flickr.
Also, every pro user with maybe thousand images, might know the situation when the pro expired. It's not longer possible to access the majority of images. Especially when they are set to Friends & Family or Private at all.
(i consider the private group trick almost a violation of the terms of services. Some gray area. That Flickr does not actively deletes accounts using that trick, is good, but that policy could change at any time.)
To give another example. Flickr could double the price for a pro account. The majority of the pro users would be left with only two options. Buy it or leave flickr, ...and maybe even lose some amount of data.
Flickr has a clear dependency mechanism.
How does the Facebook dependency look like?
Very simple: everybody is on Facebook and some user depend on that communication channel to have (easy) access to the majority of their Friends.
The problem here is the evolution of Facebook's privacy settings. The graphs shows how Facebook is eroding the users privacy.
It is one example of how a company can change the users data - in this case the visibility to the public.
In 2005 Facebook was a very closed system where it was only possible to view any information if you had a account and you where connected to the right people. You could call it a "private environment". This might have been a factor why people willingly shared data with Facebook?!
Flickr also provides these private environments. Could this be a reason why we share photos on Flickr?!
The dependency allowed Facebook to slowly change the privacy terms. In this case, dependency became a privacy issue.
Sure, to this day Flickr or Yahoo never made any changes on the terms of services that could exploit the current dependency.
However, if flickr removes this specific limitation, it would give up a specific dependency. Any future exploitation would be less likely.
Flickr would still have enough mechanisms to encourage the user to buy a pro account. But the essential problem here: That i should always have access to my data.... would be solved.
It's a simple request and a simple solution, but it's also a very essential message in the current "privacy war".
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In this situation the user totally depends on Flickr.
More fool he. That was a deliberate choice.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Buckeye:
Sure, it looks silly, i know this. But guess what? I rather have a silly discussion about privacy and this specific problem. Because what is the alternative? A elite group of techs that is always able to choose. The normal user is left with no choice.
This is a very simple demand, a request every user should make. But the underlying issue is a major problem of the "social web".
I am a tech, i have 15 years of experience with the computer, including programming and the administration of servers. I sure have no problem in storing my images somewhere else. I certainly belong to that tech elite, if i like it or not.
With that i understand a good amount of the current privacy issues. And with that i have this very simple silly request for Flickr. I want full free access to my data all the time. Because it will matter for the normal user.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
:
Privacy is about preventing others from seeing your data. It has very little to nothing to do with giving you access to your data. In terms of privacy, Flickr already gives you the (minimum) access needed to ensure the privacy of your data: You are welcome to delete your account at any time, which deletes your photos, videos, and metadata from Flickr. Flickr cannot share to others what it does not have, thus ensuring that others cannot see your data.
Unlimited access to your own data is an issue otherwise unrelated to the privacy. I don't see why Flickr is obligated to provide anyone with a free service—in this case, free storage space for one's photos. Why is it Flickr's problem if someone cannot find the funds or storage space or what-have-you to store their photos in an appropriate manner?
And has been pointed out above, anyone using what Flickr provides for free knows up front about the restrictions Flickr imposes. If someone continues to use Flickr despite those restrictions and somehow becomes "dependent" upon Flickr, it is by their own willing choice. Why is it Flickr's problem if someone doesn't think through the consequences of their actions?
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
kitby edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
|
@Kitby:
Privacy is about preventing others from seeing your data. It has very little to nothing to do with giving you access to your data.
If i can not access my data i can not control my privacy, right? If i have a free account and a untagged picture beyond that 200 limit, somewhere on flickr. Without knowing the direct Url, i can not change the privacy settings of that picture. I lost the control over that picture. It's very unlikely that i would find that picture without buying a pro account.
If someone continues to use Flickr despite those restrictions and somehow becomes "dependent" upon Flickr, it is by their own willing choice. Why is it Flickr's problem if someone doesn't think through the consequences of their actions?
Why do people start to become "dependent" on the social web at all?
(To compare it with a real world. In some areas people highly depend on a working car, another technology. A "choice" can change to a dependency.)
See its very simple. The "normal user" should demand certain things from the social web. Free access to all their data should be one thing. This i why i make this "silly" request.
And please, let people be "fools" to some extend. Allow people to make foolish actions because they put a certain trust into a company. Allow people to "not know" certain tricks. Not everybody is a pro, not everybody can buy things on the internet, not everybody has a understanding about all the technology issues.
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
occ4m edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
|
I don't know how I survived before Flickr and Facebook. We have no choice but to use them. Clearly, it's impossible to take photos or make friends without them.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If i can not access my data i can not control my privacy, right?
As I pointed out, Flickr already gives you the minimum access required to control the privacy of your data: You're welcome to delete your account and all its data along with it. If you want to make sure something stays private, it's very easy to do so, and that's all that "privacy" requires.
If you want to share your data in some particular way, we're no longer talking about privacy and keeping your data private—we're talking about something else. It seems reasonable (to me, at least) for Flickr to ask for something in exchange for providing the service of sharing your data with others, or to otherwise provide the service only in a limited capacity.
If you're simply talking about Flickr providing a free storage service for your data, I have nothing further to say on that point.
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
kitby edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
|
@kitby
Flickr already has a upload limitation to avoid a "extensive free storage". I don't think that my proposed change would create any harm on the Flickr infrastructure or payment model. Flickr still has many more options to react to any miss-usage.
@andyscamera made a good (ironic?) point.
If a user becomes depended on a certain service, its not longer a choice. And therefor deleting images or even deleting a whole account might not always be a option. This is not a solution for the initial problem.
And again. I don't question the current privacy features of Flickr. I question the dependency.
Kitby, you are totally right. I am totally willing to pay for SHARING my images via flickr. I understand that sharing with flickr needs disk space and bandwidth and that i should pay for it.
But i am not talking about sharing images, i talk about ACCESS to all my images.
As a pro user i already payed for the disk space - but the amount of bandwidth that i create to access my photos is hardly anything that would make any impact at all.
If you care so much about the fairness it would also be possible to lift this limitation for pro users only. Once you had a pro account, you always get access to all your images. Is that more reasonable?
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You have access to your images - you may either place them all in a group, or pay for a pro-account.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're getting precisely what flickr agreed to give you when you opened your account and paid nothing. You have no right to make your 'very simple demand'. Stop bleating.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As above. With a free account, you get something for nothing. With a paid account, you get the service you want. Flickr is a business, not a charity.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I would NEVER depend on Flickr or any other website to hold or store my photos. Even on a long trip my pics would goto a computer or I would have several cards for the camera.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This is a very simple demand, a request every user should make. But the underlying issue is a major problem of the "social web".
Did you mean to type "social" or "socialist" ?
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"This is a very simple demand, a request every user should make"
No, it's a demand no user of a free account should ever make. As a request, it's just as suggestible as any other idea, but in no way is flickr obligated to deliver on it.
What flickr decides to give you for free, is what you get, period, if you decide to take flickr up on their offer for a free account. You don't magically, because you did take them up on their free offer, get to tell them what they have to, or must, give you. No "demands."
Even as a paid user, what you are actually entitled to is limited to what they said they'd give you in return for your money at the time they took your money.
Yes, they take suggestions, both from users of free and paid accounts. No, they're under no obligation to implement them. No, "demands" are not appropriate, unless you were promised something in return for your paid account, and you didn't get it.
In that case, an that case only, it is reasonable to say "Please supply me with the feature(s) I paid for, or return my money."
..there are times I am nothing less than dumbfounded at the feelings of entitlement that some people seem to think are perfectly appropriate. This is one of them.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Flickr Ideas /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Flickr Ideas discussion threads
