dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6097
share rss forum feed


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

3 recommendations

Steve Wozniak predicts 'horrible problems' with cloud...

quote:
"I really worry about everything going to the cloud," he said. "I think it's going to be horrendous. I think there are going to be a lot of horrible problems in the next five years."

...

"With the cloud, you don't own anything. You already signed it away" through the legalistic terms of service with a cloud provider that computer users must agree to.

»www.news.com.au/technology/apple···43447897
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 recommendation

That is precisely why I run my own web and email servers. The problem of on-line hosting providers claiming either outright ownership or automatic unlimited licensing rights to anything you store on their servers has been with us for quite a while. The "cloud" approach just greatly magnifies the problem, because many "ordinary" users as well as many SMB (and probably even enterprise class) users won't even think about where their data is actually stored (or bother to read the TOS).

Here is a sample of why I no longer use AT&T/Yahoo owned servers to publish web content:




I keep several of those AT&T/Yahoo web servers active with that disclaimer page visible, but nothing else with intellectual property value is stored on them. If AT&T and/or Yahoo want the right to redistribute or otherwise publish my "Piss on ATT/Yahoo" logo, they are welcome to use it.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 recommendation

reply to StuartMW

I agree with his concerns.

Tech has always seemed to follow the same progression: We see the dazzling new stuff and adopt it, and only later do we consider the security or the cost - usually after we get burnt.

You'd think we'd learn but we don't because the virtual world is somehow perceived to be different. Like it can't really happen - and "friends" are really our friends. So we lather, rinse, repeat.

Never mind false advertising, whatever happened to once bitten, twice shy? Risk assessment? Contingency plans? If you did this in the real world, you'd be beat up and bruised and have the sense to stop.

I'm not sure the world is really ready for "computers for the rest of us." Not when so many of us (individuals and companies) have the common sense God gave a grape.



Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to StuartMW

And this is why the cloud is a great place to store non-private, non-critical data. Should Amazon go crazy and burn my MP3 storage, I'm out...what, a small online music collection? Nobody's dead, nor is there any more damage caused than the loss of my music. Meanwhile, Amazon would have hosed themselves for all future commerce I would have carried on through them.

I think the most "personal" thing I throw up on the cloud are notes on the lectures I attend. Then again, these aren't state secrets...unless it's SOP to dictate them to 100+ people at a time.



StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to goalieskates

said by goalieskates:

We see the dazzling new stuff and adopt it, and only later do we consider the security or the cost - usually after we get burnt.

I see the trend towards cloud computing as similar to social networking. The motivations are different but this "put everything on the internet" is going to burn many people/organizations.

As you said "the virtual world is somehow perceived to be different" by many. To me its like walking around naked and living in a glass house. I just don't feel the need to share that much.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
kudos:4
reply to NetFixer

said by NetFixer:

Here is a sample of why I no longer use AT&T/Yahoo owned servers to publish web content:


Can you provide a link to that TOS?

The TOS mentions content uploaded to public accessible areas on the sites.

Does this imply that there are private areas not accessible to the public?

thanks,

-rich


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 recommendation

said by mysec:

said by NetFixer:

Here is a sample of why I no longer use AT&T/Yahoo owned servers to publish web content:


Can you provide a link to that TOS?

The TOS mentions content uploaded to public accessible areas on the sites.

Does this imply that there are private areas not accessible to the public?

thanks,

-rich

»www.att.com/shop/internet/att-in···ice.html

The passages I quoted are in section 11. Data Management, Content & Links.

As to private areas, when using their free or paid web hosting, you can use html code to prevent casual web browsing of certain content and discourage search engine indexing. But those areas are still publicly accessible (meaning from the Internet) to anyone with the proper url and/or authentication.

For example, using the url »ftp.pwp.att.net/d/c/dcsnet/image/ will display this page:




While using the url »ftp.pwp.att.net/d/c/dcsnet/image···gram.gif will display this page (at least it will display that image today...it gets updated to match the actual network layout):




Since that image is nothing to which I attach any major intellectual property value, I still leave that (and similar un-indexed content) on AT&T/Yahoo servers (as hinted in the FTP view of that site below).



--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to StuartMW

For the stuff that matters I have my own cloud thanks, for everything else that ultimately I don't care about (which means if you start charging me for the service I'll just quit using it) I'm happy to use someone else's cloud.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to StuartMW

So, which is riskier: triple-redundant Amazon S3 storage, or a crappy WD disk on a dusty home PC owned by someone who's never made a backup in his life?

---
I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference between using cloud-based storage and infrastructure, and using remote web hosting. Except unless more clueless people start using it and get a nasty surprise.

---
I'd appreciate pointers to anything saying that Amazon owns anything you store in its S3 service. I just don't think that's likely to be true - Amazon seems to be aimed at supplying business-class services.



Sentinel
Premium
join:2001-02-07
Florida
kudos:1

It seems as though they are saying specifically that they DO NOT own any of your content on their servers. It seems as though what they are saying is that they have the right to use it and duplicate it and post it anywhere they want. You still own it but they can do what they want with it. What's the difference? Ask a lawyer.

I don't like cloud computing because then I don't own anything. If I lose access to the company I lose access to my stuff. I have the original theatrical release of Star Wars. If all I had was Netflix I could not watch that (I don't think) I would have to watch the "updated" version that "they" think is better. I really like having my own stuff.

As for the internet hosting companies ... they have lost tons of my files over the years. But fortunately after the first one I started keeping my own multiple back-ups, so now I just laugh it off when they have a catastrophic failure. Bottom line - no cares about you or your stuff more than you. Best is to have both. Personal preference.


mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
kudos:4
reply to NetFixer

said by NetFixer:

As to private areas, when using their free or paid web hosting, you can use html code to prevent casual web browsing of certain content and discourage search engine indexing. But those areas are still publicly accessible (meaning from the Internet) to anyone with the proper url and/or authentication.


So, based on what you've written, it appears that your content is private unless you grant access to someone by giving proper authentication.

Is this correct?

-rich

mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
kudos:4
reply to Sentinel

said by Sentinel:

It seems as though they are saying specifically that they DO NOT own any of your content on their servers. It seems as though what they are saying is that they have the right to use it and duplicate it and post it anywhere they want.


It's still not clear to me: the TOS states they have the right to anything you upload to a public area of their server. This implies to me that there is a non-public area in which they do not have the right to use your content.

-rich

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Sentinel

I'm not seeing that claim.

»aws.amazon.com/agreement/

quote:
8.1 Your Content. As between you and us, you or your licensors own all right, title, and interest in and to Your Content. Except as provided in this Section 8, we obtain no rights under this Agreement from you or your licensors to Your Content, including any related intellectual property rights. You consent to our use of Your Content to provide the Service Offerings to you and any End Users. We may disclose Your Content to provide the Service Offerings to you or any End Users or to comply with any request of a governmental or regulatory body (including subpoenas or court orders).



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
reply to mysec

said by mysec:

said by NetFixer:

As to private areas, when using their free or paid web hosting, you can use html code to prevent casual web browsing of certain content and discourage search engine indexing. But those areas are still publicly accessible (meaning from the Internet) to anyone with the proper url and/or authentication.


So, based on what you've written, it appears that your content is private unless you grant access to someone by giving proper authentication.

Is this correct?

-rich

That depends on how the particular server (and/or subdirectory) is configured. In the simple sample I posted, only a url explicitely pointing to the particular object was required (something that I would not do if real security was needed), but someone (or a search engine) just scanning the site using existing links would not likely see that particular object (well, that particular image file could be found rather easily since links to it have been posted on this site numerous times). If I had used a .htaccess file (with http security statements) in that subdirectory, then a prompt for a username and password would have popped up. However, I am not so sure that even using http security would exempt content stored on an AT&T/Yahoo owned server from their licensing claims since even with the security requirements, it is still publicly accessible (as opposed to possibly limiting public access with something like a VPN connection).
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12
reply to StuartMW

 

I totally 100000000% agree with his concerns!!


mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
kudos:4
reply to NetFixer

Re: Steve Wozniak predicts 'horrible problems' with cloud...

said by NetFixer:

However, I am not so sure that even using http security would exempt content stored on an AT&T/Yahoo owned server from their licensing claims since even with the security requirements, it is still publicly accessible (as opposed to possibly limiting public access with something like a VPN connection).


OK, thanks.

I'm just curious, since I know nothing about this Cloud stuff and have no intent of using such a service.

However, since a good backup system should include a copy of everything off site -- in case of fire, complete theft, etc -- I can see a Cloud service being an alternative (to a safety deposit box, for example) for some people.

AT&T's would seem -- based on what you've concluded -- to be one to avoid.

-rich


antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to StuartMW

If you're going to put in the cloud, at least encrypt it and have other copies locally offline and other places.


KitFox

join:2002-10-09
Denver, CO
kudos:1
reply to NetFixer

I love it when sheeple panic because they can't understand words. That's what the US education system is getting us these days.

IANAL, but that stuff is so plain English it's not even funny. That AT&T Legalese means:
If you give it to us specifically to display it for you from our servers to people, you are giving us the right to display it to people until you tell us to stop by removing the content.

That is, "You can't put this stuff on our servers for people around the world to see it, then sue us for using it without your permission when somebody views it at the server address you placed it at."

There is no implied permission. They can't say "Well, you knew that you uploaded it to a place where it would be seen by anybody who went to »www.server.com/data, so you should expect that when people go there, they will see it." That was tried, people put up a picture on a web server, then sued for it being displayed by the web server, and won. So the ISPs have to explicitly get that permission via the ToS rather than getting a copy of written permission for each file.

So they have to say "When you put it there, you are explicitly granting permission for our servers to display it to people. When you take it down, or we take it down, that permission goes away."

They VERY explicitly also say "solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available", which expressly means that if you post pictures of a volcano exploding on a your web site run by them, the purpose it was submitted was to make it visible on the web site, so this does NOT grant them permission to sell it to a magazine, post it on their home page saying "Look, a volcano exploded" or anything else, since that is not the purpose it was submitted or made available for.

But hey, like I said, I blame this on the English language making legalese a pain and on the lack of educational standards making people fully incapable of not failing to understand. Kind of like too many people wouldn't understand the twisted negations in the sentence preceding this one. That and too many others won't know the word "preceding".



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 recommendation

said by KitFox:

I love it when sheeple panic because they can't understand words. That's what the US education system is getting us these days.

IANAL, but that stuff is so plain English it's not even funny. That AT&T Legalese means:
If you give it to us specifically to display it for you from our servers to people, you are giving us the right to display it to people until you tell us to stop by removing the content.

That is, "You can't put this stuff on our servers for people around the world to see it, then sue us for using it without your permission when somebody views it at the server address you placed it at."

There is no implied permission. They can't say "Well, you knew that you uploaded it to a place where it would be seen by anybody who went to »www.server.com/data, so you should expect that when people go there, they will see it." That was tried, people put up a picture on a web server, then sued for it being displayed by the web server, and won. So the ISPs have to explicitly get that permission via the ToS rather than getting a copy of written permission for each file.

So they have to say "When you put it there, you are explicitly granting permission for our servers to display it to people. When you take it down, or we take it down, that permission goes away."

They VERY explicitly also say "solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available", which expressly means that if you post pictures of a volcano exploding on a your web site run by them, the purpose it was submitted was to make it visible on the web site, so this does NOT grant them permission to sell it to a magazine, post it on their home page saying "Look, a volcano exploded" or anything else, since that is not the purpose it was submitted or made available for.

But hey, like I said, I blame this on the English language making legalese a pain and on the lack of educational standards making people fully incapable of not failing to understand. Kind of like too many people wouldn't understand the twisted negations in the sentence preceding this one. That and too many others won't know the word "preceding".

 
Speaking of English reading comprehension problems:

said by AT&T :

iii. With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Site other than Yahoo! Groups, you grant AT&T and Yahoo! the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

That paragraph from the AT&T TOS obviously has nothing to do with their providing the hosting service, and simply providing access to your content based on your own licensing terms. It has to do with their self declared "right" to do whatever they wish anytime they wish, and wherever they wish, with your intellectual property.

Obviously one of us has never had intellectual property to try to protect from unauthorized usage. I wonder which one of us that would be?
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.

KitFox

join:2002-10-09
Denver, CO
kudos:1

Well, besides the fact that the paragraph refers to text primarily, though it also technically applies to binaries (and who is stupid enough to post their own compiled code on a Yahoo site?) that you make publicly accessible, that covers the fact that when you post it, it will be translated by Google translate if somebody requests such, potentially by the site itself, and it will invariably be mirrored on so many servers, consolidation systems, etc, that any attempt to remove it would be futile. Then include data retention policies for text and it opens another huge can of worms. Since removing text from so many systems, including ones not under AT&T/Y!'s control is prohibitive, they cover it by saying "If you submit text, you can't take away our right to use it somehow."

If you are posting the whole of your novel there for public consumption, then yes, you grant them the right to use it for anything.

So don't post your novel.

What text or other non-media content have you posted for public access that you may, in the future, want to try to remove from the AT&T/Y! completely? And if you were permitted to, at a whim, force them to scrub every single system (indexes, RSS, everything else too) of your content, how do you propose to remove it from everywhere else?



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 edit

said by KitFox:

Well, besides the fact that the paragraph refers to text primarily, though it also technically applies to binaries (and who is stupid enough to post their own compiled code on a Yahoo site?)

In this particular case, yes I was referring to binary code that I do make available for downloading from my web site(s), but under my own licensing terms, not AT&T's. And FYI, AT&T/Yahoo operate a major web and email hosting service used by many businesses (I am not in any way talking about some Yahoo social networking site).

The specific example I provided was from the "free" web hosting sites that they provide to their customers (and to which I still have access and continue to use for non-critical purposes). However, I did indeed used to pay for their commercial web hosting service for my web sites (until they started claiming the right to ignore my own licensing terms and invisibly replace it with their draconian TOS). And prior to their current TOS adaption, I did also use the "free" web sites for static storage and as temporary backups to my primary web sites (but no more).
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.

KitFox

join:2002-10-09
Denver, CO
kudos:1

Oy. XD

Okay, first thing, try to avoid falling into trollish traps. :\ I only put them around on rare occasion when I don't think anybody will fall for them. That is, don't respond to "who is stupid enough to...?" with "I am!!" ...

Anyway, on to the more serious considerations of the situation.

First, it's obvious that in your case, for the utmost legal protection, yes, you would want to Not Post Binary Software under places that have those ToS. Do the same terms exist on their paid service?

If so, then don't use their paid service for that either.

If not, then those terms on a dissimilar service should not be cause to not use the paid service for logical reasons. Certainly, there may be other causes (cost, reliability, whatever), but to say "I won't use your paid service because people who use your free service get what they pay for" doesn't fully make sense. People who are protecting their IP should hopefully be smart enough to read legalese (that is what IP is all about after all) and use only services or portions that don't cause IP issues.

Of course you can have a moral or personal belief cause for not using it, however if that is the case, then that is your own moral or personal belief. It's kind of like religion or politics. Shoving it in other peoples' faces is generally not cool. Sure, go ahead and PSA the facts, "The ToS on this is worded in such a way that it allows bad stuff to happen". But then let other people make their own decision whether to not-use that specific service, or whether they intend to spread out their disuse further. Where does it stop, otherwise? Do you not accept phone calls from anybody who uses AT&T cell phone service, for example?

That being said, can you find one case at all where AT&T/Y! has actually made use of that section of the ToS in a way that you would consider inappropriate? Have there been situations where text or non-media content has been appropriated badly?

I guess the whole "Catch more flies with sugar than vinegar" thing comes into play. As a customer, I have a very hard time finding horrible service unless there is a direct break down in the individual providing it (such as the McD's dude who was stoned at work). I bet even you are happier to fix things, respond and give detailed explanations to people who ask kindly with a genuine cause, rather than people who scream that something is wrong and you need to fix it or explain it to them now.

So perhaps you should get info from AT&T about it in a productive and contributory way? After all, they know they can't make everybody happy all the time, and your dislike is a drop in the bucket for all the business. They are not stupid enough to steal something just because the ToS says they can, because when that hits the news, it would have a major fallout. So bring up the confusion and concern, and see what comes of it.



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

said by KitFox:

Oy. XD

Okay, first thing, try to avoid falling into trollish traps. :\ I only put them around on rare occasion when I don't think anybody will fall for them. That is, don't respond to "who is stupid enough to...?" with "I am!!" ...

Don't worry, you didn't have to admit that you are a troll, anyone who reads your posts in this thread is certainly aware of that.

OTOH, there are some (including some moderators on this site) who might be naive enough to believe the BS that you posted, and I was just setting the record straight for their benefit.

As for the rest of your "advice", I think you know where you can stuff it.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.

KitFox

join:2002-10-09
Denver, CO
kudos:1

And that's the kind of response I expected.

Plus it feeds into my counterpoint perfectly. I trolled at the start of my post and you fell into it hook line and sinker. Then, because you decide to focus on only that, you disregard and dismiss any other relevant portions of the posts. Kind of like you disregarded and dismissed the other relevant portions of the ToS.

From the ToS:
iii. With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Site other than Yahoo! Groups...

"Site" is capitalized, so it's a defined term. What's its definition?
It is defined in:
This Terms of Service & Terms of Use ("Agreement") along with the AT&T Acceptable Use Policy and the AT&T and Yahoo privacy policies, set forth your obligations, AT&T's obligations, and the rules you must follow when using the att.net portal and/or e-mail ("Site") and/or AT&T High Speed Internet, AT&T High Speed Internet Direct, AT&T Dial and AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet, FastAccess DSL and FastAccess Business DSL, Wireless Broadband provided by BellSouth Entertainment, LLC, BellSouth® Dial Internet Service ("Service(s)").

PWP (Personal web pages) are located on home.att.net, but that is not part of the portal. The above specifically says the att.net portal and/or email. So what is the att.net portal? A quick search on Google comes up with a simple answer at first glance:

ATT.NET - Email, News, Sports, Entertainment and Games
att.my.yahoo.com/
Welcome to the AT&T Portal! Stay informed with up to date news, weather, entertainment, sports, email, finance and more. At AT&T you have access to some of ...

Further investigation shows no connection between any of the user-controlled web services (PWP, Business Web Hosting, etc) and the att.net portal. Those portions are not the att.net portal, so the section that is being crowed about does not apply to them.

And before anybody goes pointing at "and/or e-mail" and jumping up and down, the whole "publicly accessible" requirement of item iii precludes that.

In summary, the whole panic and argument is based off a failure to follow relevant information and definitions.

Now. If you would like to dispute that with facts as opposed to trying to focus on the partial-trolling, feel free.



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

The PWP sites (which I used as an example) are indeed covered by the same TOS as the one under discussion. Those PWP sites are indeed part of the "site" referred to in that same TOS. Here is the link to the PWP setup/signin page: »pwp.att.net/p/ and the TOS link on that page points to the same TOS that is being discussed (it is a different physical copy of the document, but the terms that are under discussion in this thread are the same). The reason that it might appear that the PWP sites are not part of the AT&T/Yahoo portal site (to someone who did not research it sufficiently) is probably because there is currently no direct link to the PWP setup page on the portal homepage. That is because the PWP sites are no longer being advertised to new users, and are now mostly a grandfathered feature for older customers. Since my quoting from the TOS on the PWP sites that I operate directly applies to those web sites, I have no reason to recant my editorial comments or remove the TOS quotes from those web sites.

One thing you are partly correct about is that the current TOS for AT&T's commercial web hosting service no longer contains the unlimited licensing crap (which is good, and I appreciate the prodding to look at the current TOS for that service). That change is probably because that particular service is no longer associated with Yahoo. When it was still associated with Yahoo, the TOS that I remember seeing was similar to the overall AT&T/Yahoo TOS that is under discussion in this thread. And that (along with a disagreement about running my »portscan.dcs-net.net service on their servers) is why I migrated from AT&T hosting.

Would I consider using the AT&T commercial hosting sites again now that the unlimited licensing claim is not present in that service's TOS?
FWIW the roflmao image above is currently being hosted on an AT&T PWP server.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.


celtictoad13

join:2009-02-25
Carlinville, IL
reply to StuartMW

With the utmost respect to all who post in this thread. Woz's comments seem to focus around a Individual consumer Cloud Computing and Not a Business Class Cloud computing. With that said, For those that do not take the time to read a Cloud providers TOS and not have an understanding of what you are agreeing to its your own damn fault.

As far as on a business side, it goes to the CTO to have an appropriate plan in place as to how they should manage their Cloud computing platform (IAAS, PAAS, SAAS). And what they put on the cloud and what they put on their own internal servers. How that appropriate data is managed ultimately falls to the policies and TOS agreements that a individual company and service providers agree to. And those companies, not the cloud providers, have appropriate working Back-Ups of what they are putting out on the cloud.

I am not saying that the Cloud is the" Be all end all" solution. But it is at this time a good platform to a business solution. And IMHO the Cloud is not right for the Individual user unless that user knows and understands the TOS.

Cloud Computing on a Business side has room to grow. And the folks over at »www.openstack.org/ have the right approach to organically understanding the need for standards within Cloud Computing. Something that Companies like Amazon Web Service, and AT&T do not have because they feel their closed cloud environments benefit their own legal pocket books and will whittle away with TOS that only benefit themselves and not their customers.


KitFox

join:2002-10-09
Denver, CO
kudos:1
reply to NetFixer

As you observed, the ToS linked from the PWP is a copy of the other. A quick check in with AT&T verified that PWP are not legally considered part of the "att.net portal" as defined in the ToS and thus not defined as the "Site". Kind of like the ToS mention Fios (one of the "Services") yet is linked from places that don't involve Fios at all, such as my access to Yahoo through Comcast.

However, as observed by somebody else, this is probably not the best thread to be discussing it. *shrug*



wxboss
This is like Deja vu all over again.
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 recommendation

reply to goalieskates

said by goalieskates:

I agree with his concerns.

Tech has always seemed to follow the same progression: We see the dazzling new stuff and adopt it, and only later do we consider the security or the cost - usually after we get burnt.

You'd think we'd learn but we don't because the virtual world is somehow perceived to be different. Like it can't really happen - and "friends" are really our friends. So we lather, rinse, repeat.

Never mind false advertising, whatever happened to once bitten, twice shy? Risk assessment? Contingency plans? If you did this in the real world, you'd be beat up and bruised and have the sense to stop.

I'm not sure the world is really ready for "computers for the rest of us." Not when so many of us (individuals and companies) have the common sense God gave a grape.

Agree 100%. I was an early adopter of FB in its pioneer days. It was innocent enough then, but it now has so many security concerns that I quickly turned tail and ran the other direction.

I understand that the 'cloud' and FB are two different entities so to speak, but I reference it only because FB made me wary of jumping on new technology too soon.

The cloud makes sharing and storing data easy with promises of security intertwined in the package, but it really boils down to entrusting someone else with my stuff - a person (entity) which, by the way, I have never met personally.
--
"I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act." --- G. K. Chesterton


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to Link Logger

said by Link Logger:

For the stuff that matters I have my own cloud thanks, for everything else that ultimately I don't care about (which means if you start charging me for the service I'll just quit using it) I'm happy to use someone else's cloud.

Blake

I agree, I have my own cloud. I have a machine that is on 24/7/365 and a droboFS on my network. Granted if a fire happened tomorrow I might be in trouble but I stand a better chance of the wife burning down the house than I do. We had a gas leak last week in the house and the situation has been rectified, that was as close to danger as we got.

in the next years or so, I plan on moving my email to a imap type of system and on a paid email platform (probably fastmail.fm)
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!


EGeezer
zichrona livracha
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Callcentric
reply to NetFixer

That's pretty bad - try this one on for size;

By submitting or otherwise making available any Member Content to IslandPacket.com, you automatically grant The Island Packet and IslandPacket.com a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable (through multiple tiers), license to use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, publish, adapt, create derivative works of, distribute, transfer or sell any such content, for any purpose, including commercial purposes and in connection with advertising for the sole benefit of IslandPacket.com (collectively, "use"), in any type of media or in any form now known or later developed, without any payment to you.

In addition, you automatically waive and give up any claim that any use of such content violates any of your rights, including privacy rights, publicity rights, moral rights or any other right, including the right to approve the way IslandPacket.com uses such content. You also grant The Island Packet and IslandPacket.com the right to use any material, information, ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any communication you provide, submit, or otherwise make available to IslandPacket.com or to The Island Packet for any purpose whatsoever, including, without limitation, commercial purposes.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that this paper's TOS had read as follows;

... automatically grant The Island Packet and IslandPacket.com an exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable (through multiple tiers), license ...

I'd linked to a photo in my Flickr account in a post on a local historical site. Instead of displaying the link, the DISQUS coding retrieved the image and stored it on their server.

When I sent a note explaining that I didn't want the photo uploaded to their site, and was not granting all those rights, they removed everything.