Should they also be able to see that you are listening to Mein Kamf without youbeing warned?
Good point. But if I bought it from Apple, don't they already know?
Maybe that's the distinction. OK, fine. I'm OK with Apple utilizing my use of content that I download from Apple to make the iTunes experience better for me.
Should they also be able to see that you are listening to Mein Kamf without youbeing warned?
You are making an unwarranted assumption that "they" are listening.
There is no "they". The servers receive the information about which song is playing or is being clicked on. Then the software shows other songs based on criteria that was programmed into it.
The information exchange is instantaneous, made up on the fly, and is also, just as instantaneously, dropped.
I'm glad Apple added this notice to iTunes. When I first launched iTunes after the update I was like WTF and couldn't figure out how to turn the mini store off, and I know what I'm doing!! This is a step in the right direction as it both informs the user and defaults the new feature to off.
If this was launched as part of a major iTunes release they probably could have defaulted it to active though.
You are making an unwarranted assumption that "they" are listening.
There is no "they". The servers receive the information about which song is playing or is being clicked on. Then the software shows other songs based on criteria that was programmed into it.
The information exchange is instantaneous, made up on the fly, and is also, just as instantaneously, dropped.
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
I get annoyed with conspiracy theorists who think that businesses somehow care about your personal ideologies or law-breaking behavior. If it doesn't affect their bottom-line, they don't care about it, simple as that. Get out of the house a bit more, ease up on the pot smoking, and maybe see the world a bit clearer.
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
I get annoyed with conspiracy theorists who think that businesses somehow care about your personal ideologies or law-breaking behavior. If it doesn't affect their bottom-line, they don't care about it, simple as that. Get out of the house a bit more, ease up on the pot smoking, and maybe see the world a bit clearer.
Amen. That was actually the point of my original post, i.e., that it may actually be a good thing that Apple (it's computers, whatever) knows what I like and can present better choices to me as a result of data-mining my playlists.
That said, I think the "Just for You (Beta)" feature on iTMS is a pretty weak first effort. It seems to look more to the totality of what I've bought than what I listen to. Without getting into the issue of whether Apple has or should have access to that information, I don't find the feature to be all that helpful.
For example, it tells me that I might like Weezer's Green album. Guess what! I do! And I already have it; I just happened to rip it from CD instead of buying it from Apple. I know it's a beta; I just note that I find it completely useless and wish there was an option for turning it off.
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
And it's not as if Amazon.com wasn't already doing something like that by telling you what others have bought in addition to the CD you're looking at. This hullabaloo reminds me of the foil-hatted people running around saying "TiVo knows everything you're watching!" So what if they do? I've always wanted to be a Nielsen family. I doubt iTunes sends personally identifiable information any more than TiVos do.
I have Little Snitch, too, and it's reported no iTunes activity. (It helps that I ripped all my songs from CD and never needed to buy anything from the iTMS. And that I found the MiniStore a waste of perfectly good screen real estate and previously turned it off, especially since I don't buy from iTMS.)
Amen. That was actually the point of my original post, i.e., that it may actually be a good thing that Apple (it's computers, whatever) knows what I like and can present better choices to me as a result of data-mining my playlists.
Yes, it should be up to the consumer whether they think it's of benefit to them to allow a company to gather personal information about them in order to provide a better service. Or whether they (in the case of myself) are subscribed to a number of record release lists with MP3 previews, chat with musicians and religious music fanatics on message boards, etc, etc and know well enough to make their own choices (and thus would rather not share our personal information).
Then again, most of the music I listen to isn't available on the iTMS anyways, so it's a moot point (and yes, I do buy MP3s online, just elsewhere).
And it's not as if Amazon.com wasn't already doing something like that by telling you what others have bought in addition to the CD you're looking at. This hullabaloo reminds me of the foil-hatted people running around saying "TiVo knows everything you're watching!" So what if they do? I've always wanted to be a Nielsen family. I doubt iTunes sends personally identifiable information any more than TiVos do.
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are.
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are..
Likewise, there's no evidence that they are deleting the information they collect.
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
.
The fears of most people on this had nothing to do with the CIA/NSa/FBI or Big Brother et al
The fear was that AN ALGORITHM was churning the data into what would be the most valuable form of demographic info that the record companies could ever dream of...exactly what you listen to, when, how long, and maybe at what volume...all kinds of odd shit...just think of all the data that could have been sent back...
I really had no fear, because people were so pissed when they first saw it that I KNEW that there were at least 1000 or more (other) people running protocol analyzers looking for ANYTHING odd...it would have been discovered and splashed everywhere in minutes. and this doesnt account for iTunes competition, who was no doubt checking too, 12 hrs after the relese, I knew it was clean.
I do not really understand what all this fuss is about.
It seemed, to me anyway, as soon as I launced Itunes 6.0.2 that there
was a new button at the bottom of the library screen.
Whats that I thought, moved my mouse over it and it said - "show or hide the ministore" - if it was open, it was obvious that data was being shared as it was
showing me comparible songs as what I was listening to, turn it off and it went away, the only thing odd was not knowing what was being shared, Apple very very quickly told us what was going on, within about 24 hours down under anyway.
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are.
So, you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Not really, because the reality of the situation is exactly what I said: Apple is profiting from the gathering of information by offering sales suggestions based on your playlist, which a certain percentage of consumers will use to buy music they might not have purchased otherwise. The side-effect is, of course, also of benefit to music consumers who are looking for new music that they might not find out about otherwise, which is why it makes business sense.
I never speculated about anyone else profiting from the same information (which is where the conspiracy theory would lie). Though Apple is free to do whatever they please with that information, so it would be in their best interest to maximize their investment in obtaining it (research & development costs, hardware costs, hardware maintenance, network bandwidth, etc) by finding other ways to profit from it.
Not really, because the reality of the situation is exactly what I said: Apple is profiting from the gathering of information by offering sales suggestions based on your playlist, which a certain percentage of consumers will use to buy music they might not have purchased otherwise. The side-effect is, of course, also of benefit to music consumers who are looking for new music that they might not find out about otherwise, which is why it makes business sense.
I never speculated about anyone else profiting from the same information (which is where the conspiracy theory would lie). Though Apple is free to do whatever they please with that information, so it would be in their best interest to maximize their investment in obtaining it (research & development costs, hardware costs, hardware maintenance, network bandwidth, etc) by finding other ways to profit from it.
That's not quite what you were hinting.
Quote:
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
Considering the subject that we are talking about. This is a pretty clear indication that you weren't talking about Apple, but that you were concerned that "someone else" was possibly benefiting.
Otherwise, you could simply have said that you didn't mind that Apple was benefiting, as you just did to me.
Considering the subject that we are talking about. This is a pretty clear indication that you weren't talking about Apple, but that you were concerned that "someone else" was possibly benefiting.
No, I was giving an example (hence the "For example") of why someone would possibly not want to give their information out and would like to know exactly who is using it. I brought up this example in order to support my point of why I think companies should be completely transparent about information gathering. I never stated nor implied that this is what Apple is doing. Though I suppose that, in the context of this discussion, it's natural to assume that Apple is the company to fill in the blanks with. However, I assure you that my discussion has drifted to the more general issue of information gathering rather than this specific case.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Otherwise, you could simply have said that you didn't mind that Apple was benefiting, as you just did to me.
I didn't state that either. But I admit, I wouldn't mind giving information to Apple for their benefit because I have no qualms with them (though I admit that I haven't looked into all of Apple's parts suppliers to see their track records on human rights, but that's another issue).
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Should they also be able to see that you are listening to Mein Kamf without youbeing warned?
Good point. But if I bought it from Apple, don't they already know?
Maybe that's the distinction. OK, fine. I'm OK with Apple utilizing my use of content that I download from Apple to make the iTunes experience better for me.
Originally posted by Anders
Should they also be able to see that you are listening to Mein Kamf without youbeing warned?
You are making an unwarranted assumption that "they" are listening.
There is no "they". The servers receive the information about which song is playing or is being clicked on. Then the software shows other songs based on criteria that was programmed into it.
The information exchange is instantaneous, made up on the fly, and is also, just as instantaneously, dropped.
If this was launched as part of a major iTunes release they probably could have defaulted it to active though.
Originally posted by melgross
You are making an unwarranted assumption that "they" are listening.
There is no "they". The servers receive the information about which song is playing or is being clicked on. Then the software shows other songs based on criteria that was programmed into it.
The information exchange is instantaneous, made up on the fly, and is also, just as instantaneously, dropped.
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
I get annoyed with conspiracy theorists who think that businesses somehow care about your personal ideologies or law-breaking behavior. If it doesn't affect their bottom-line, they don't care about it, simple as that. Get out of the house a bit more, ease up on the pot smoking, and maybe see the world a bit clearer.
Originally posted by auxio
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
I get annoyed with conspiracy theorists who think that businesses somehow care about your personal ideologies or law-breaking behavior. If it doesn't affect their bottom-line, they don't care about it, simple as that. Get out of the house a bit more, ease up on the pot smoking, and maybe see the world a bit clearer.
Amen. That was actually the point of my original post, i.e., that it may actually be a good thing that Apple (it's computers, whatever) knows what I like and can present better choices to me as a result of data-mining my playlists.
That said, I think the "Just for You (Beta)" feature on iTMS is a pretty weak first effort. It seems to look more to the totality of what I've bought than what I listen to. Without getting into the issue of whether Apple has or should have access to that information, I don't find the feature to be all that helpful.
For example, it tells me that I might like Weezer's Green album. Guess what! I do! And I already have it; I just happened to rip it from CD instead of buying it from Apple. I know it's a beta; I just note that I find it completely useless and wish there was an option for turning it off.
Originally posted by Porchland
I know it's a beta; I just note that I find it completely useless and wish there was an option for turning it off.
Open the music store. Scroll to the bottom. Ta Da!
Originally posted by auxio
The real care here should be who is profiting from knowing that, 75% of the time someone who listens to the new Depeche Mode album will also have the new Arcade Fire album in their playlist, and so music stores (online or otherwise) which provide both albums should group them together somehow in order to increase sales.
And it's not as if Amazon.com wasn't already doing something like that by telling you what others have bought in addition to the CD you're looking at. This hullabaloo reminds me of the foil-hatted people running around saying "TiVo knows everything you're watching!" So what if they do? I've always wanted to be a Nielsen family. I doubt iTunes sends personally identifiable information any more than TiVos do.
I have Little Snitch, too, and it's reported no iTunes activity. (It helps that I ripped all my songs from CD and never needed to buy anything from the iTMS. And that I found the MiniStore a waste of perfectly good screen real estate and previously turned it off, especially since I don't buy from iTMS.)
Originally posted by Porchland
Amen. That was actually the point of my original post, i.e., that it may actually be a good thing that Apple (it's computers, whatever) knows what I like and can present better choices to me as a result of data-mining my playlists.
Yes, it should be up to the consumer whether they think it's of benefit to them to allow a company to gather personal information about them in order to provide a better service. Or whether they (in the case of myself) are subscribed to a number of record release lists with MP3 previews, chat with musicians and religious music fanatics on message boards, etc, etc and know well enough to make their own choices (and thus would rather not share our personal information).
Then again, most of the music I listen to isn't available on the iTMS anyways, so it's a moot point (and yes, I do buy MP3s online, just elsewhere).
Originally posted by Kolchak
And it's not as if Amazon.com wasn't already doing something like that by telling you what others have bought in addition to the CD you're looking at. This hullabaloo reminds me of the foil-hatted people running around saying "TiVo knows everything you're watching!" So what if they do? I've always wanted to be a Nielsen family. I doubt iTunes sends personally identifiable information any more than TiVos do.
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
Originally posted by auxio
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are.
So, you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Originally posted by melgross
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are..
Likewise, there's no evidence that they are deleting the information they collect.
Originally posted by auxio
This whole discussion is irrelevant. The whole worry about someone (they) at Apple bothering to look through a log of one hundred million or so playlist entries just to report someone who's listening to Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to the CIA is rediculous.
.
The fears of most people on this had nothing to do with the CIA/NSa/FBI or Big Brother et al
The fear was that AN ALGORITHM was churning the data into what would be the most valuable form of demographic info that the record companies could ever dream of...exactly what you listen to, when, how long, and maybe at what volume...all kinds of odd shit...just think of all the data that could have been sent back...
I really had no fear, because people were so pissed when they first saw it that I KNEW that there were at least 1000 or more (other) people running protocol analyzers looking for ANYTHING odd...it would have been discovered and splashed everywhere in minutes. and this doesnt account for iTunes competition, who was no doubt checking too, 12 hrs after the relese, I knew it was clean.
It seemed, to me anyway, as soon as I launced Itunes 6.0.2 that there
was a new button at the bottom of the library screen.
Whats that I thought, moved my mouse over it and it said - "show or hide the ministore" - if it was open, it was obvious that data was being shared as it was
showing me comparible songs as what I was listening to, turn it off and it went away, the only thing odd was not knowing what was being shared, Apple very very quickly told us what was going on, within about 24 hours down under anyway.
Originally posted by melgross
You're making an assumption as well. There is no evidence that Apple is keeping or using any of this for anything other than for what they said they are.
So, you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Not really, because the reality of the situation is exactly what I said: Apple is profiting from the gathering of information by offering sales suggestions based on your playlist, which a certain percentage of consumers will use to buy music they might not have purchased otherwise. The side-effect is, of course, also of benefit to music consumers who are looking for new music that they might not find out about otherwise, which is why it makes business sense.
I never speculated about anyone else profiting from the same information (which is where the conspiracy theory would lie). Though Apple is free to do whatever they please with that information, so it would be in their best interest to maximize their investment in obtaining it (research & development costs, hardware costs, hardware maintenance, network bandwidth, etc) by finding other ways to profit from it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Likewise, there's no evidence that they are deleting the information they collect.
The evidence has already been shown by those who have looked at what the packets contain.
Also, Apple says that they aren't keeping the info.
If you choose not to believe them, and adhere to these throries, fine.
Originally posted by auxio
Not really, because the reality of the situation is exactly what I said: Apple is profiting from the gathering of information by offering sales suggestions based on your playlist, which a certain percentage of consumers will use to buy music they might not have purchased otherwise. The side-effect is, of course, also of benefit to music consumers who are looking for new music that they might not find out about otherwise, which is why it makes business sense.
I never speculated about anyone else profiting from the same information (which is where the conspiracy theory would lie). Though Apple is free to do whatever they please with that information, so it would be in their best interest to maximize their investment in obtaining it (research & development costs, hardware costs, hardware maintenance, network bandwidth, etc) by finding other ways to profit from it.
That's not quite what you were hinting.
Right, but knowing who is profitting from your information sharing allows you to choose whether you want to "make a contribution" to that company or not. I'm not against it by any means, I just think people should be given the proper knowledge to make an informed choice (and be given a choice). For example, I wouldn't want to "contribute" information to a company whose business ethics I don't agree with.
Considering the subject that we are talking about. This is a pretty clear indication that you weren't talking about Apple, but that you were concerned that "someone else" was possibly benefiting.
Otherwise, you could simply have said that you didn't mind that Apple was benefiting, as you just did to me.
Originally posted by melgross
Considering the subject that we are talking about. This is a pretty clear indication that you weren't talking about Apple, but that you were concerned that "someone else" was possibly benefiting.
No, I was giving an example (hence the "For example") of why someone would possibly not want to give their information out and would like to know exactly who is using it. I brought up this example in order to support my point of why I think companies should be completely transparent about information gathering. I never stated nor implied that this is what Apple is doing. Though I suppose that, in the context of this discussion, it's natural to assume that Apple is the company to fill in the blanks with. However, I assure you that my discussion has drifted to the more general issue of information gathering rather than this specific case.
Originally posted by melgross
Otherwise, you could simply have said that you didn't mind that Apple was benefiting, as you just did to me.
I didn't state that either. But I admit, I wouldn't mind giving information to Apple for their benefit because I have no qualms with them (though I admit that I haven't looked into all of Apple's parts suppliers to see their track records on human rights, but that's another issue).
Originally posted by melgross
[B]The evidence has already been shown by those who have looked at what the packets contain.
And those are... who?
Also, Apple says that they aren't keeping the info.
If you choose not to believe them, and adhere to these throries, fine.
Pardon me for not taking for granted what a corporation out there to make money tells me to believe.
Pure fanboyism.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And those are... who?
If you read arounf the tech sites, a fair number of people have looked at this.
But you won't believe them anyway, I suppose.
Quote:
Pardon me for not taking for granted what a corporation out there to make money tells me to believe.
Fine, you can be as cynical as you like.
I don't believe that everything they do is bad either.