| ask | new | about | settings | login
  • [-]  jnorthrop 4 hours ago link
    Sounds like a good and noble idea. I hope they don't make the same mistake as AOL and Netflix and truly publish anonymous data. Getting this wrong could end up as yet another setback in sharing this kind of data.
    Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 8 hours ago link
    There is also the consideration that they could extend their offerings. People spend a long time on Facebook, especially when compared with the amount of time they spend on Google. If Facebook wanted to extend into search, or business applications, or anything online really, they are working with a base of close to a billion customers. That's a billion users who they have the opportunity to introduce a new service to.

    Any potential new service could provide a more effective platform for ads.

    Reply
    • [-]  Retric 7 hours ago link
      That line of argument is much more effective for young companies. FB has plenty of cash to say buy duck duck go, but they are still focused on social and making less than 1$/user/month.
      Reply
      • [-]  Bootvis 7 hours ago link
        Why? They can change their focus. With all that money and talent they can build and buy almost anything.
        Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 15 hours ago link
    If anyone is interested in single data-points:

    My business (professional assoc.) averages IE:55%, FF:14%, Chrome:12%

    My personal site averages IE:13%, FF:21%, Chrome:40%

    It's important to remember that while StatCounter results say something about internet-wide averages, browser usage is still pretty context sensitive and corporations are still largely IE based.

    Reply
    • [-]  kfk 15 hours ago link
      It's important to remember that while StatCounter results say something about internet-wide averages, browser usage is still pretty context sensitive and corporations are still largely IE based.

      Absolutely. And this is a real problem as lots of really good things are not possible in IE.

      Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 1 day ago link
    This will only be useful if governments enforce it. The US has included it for consideration in the US Privacy Bill of Rights[1] and the EU may enforce it as well[2]. But until there is some form of punishment for not complying with DNT it is essentially window dressing.

    [1]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final....

    [2]http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/docum...

    Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 3 days ago link
    I'll second the recommendation, but remember if you are using it in a corporate environment you should buy a license. I think it is only $25. Support the developer!
    Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 4 days ago link
    Of course "admitting" it, can also be phrased as "being fully transparent" and is actually required by many privacy regulations. If you tell a user you are doing something with their personal data, in the US, you generally have the right to do it.
    Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 4 days ago link
    Thank you for highlighting that section. I'm surprised dcurtis left out this nugget.

    > After a maximum of 10 days, we start the process of deleting or aggregating Widget Data

    This make is much less nefarious. I guess it isn't much of a story when you have the full context. They are only keeping it for 10 days. Sure they are still aggregating data but at that point it is anonymized data.

    Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 4 days ago link
    Practical Irrationality - Dan Ariely

    It changed the way I think about pricing, among other things, forever. He makes some wild conclusions then backs them up with scientific experiments. Its a fun read to boot.

    Reply
    • [-]  steventruong 3 days ago link
      I think you meant Predictably Irrational. I haven't heard of Practical Irrationality.
      Reply
      • [-]  jnorthrop 3 days ago link
        Ooops! You're correct but it's too late for me to edit the post now. Maybe Ariely has some explanation why I can't get his title right.
        Reply
    • [-]  mixonic 4 days ago link
      I agree, a fun & informative read!
      Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 4 days ago link
    Honestly I don't see the draw to this type of technology. It's a cool piece of hardware but it basically just allows for remote control and monitoring of electronics. Past the "that's cool" stage I don't see many people finding long-term use for such technology. The hacker in me hopes they prove me wrong, but I see this type of product continue to live serving a niche market.
    Reply
    • [-]  noonespecial 4 days ago link
      For makers, its huge. The first time I put a garage door opener on the internet so I could open it with my smartphone was early 2007. At that time it required a chain of ill suited hard to program parts totaling nearly $300. Its was $90 just for a module to "get it on the internet" via RJ45 ethernet.

      I did it again 3 months ago with a TP-Link 703 running openwrt. $22. Built-in wifi AND RJ45, usb port for io. (although I used the GPIO hooked up to is LED to save a few bucks). So that made it cheaper than buying a new remote at sears. Now I can see if the door is open and open and close it from anyhere. And give my friends temporary access to the door on Facebook.

      Why is it important? Its the difference between "$297 of patented KCD IP, LLC technology"(1) requiring a monthly subscription to use doing almost but not quite what I wanted, and spending an weekend making it perfectly what I wanted for $22 with what I already had.

      (1) http://www.craftsman.com/shc/s/dap_10155_12602_DAP_Garage+Do...

      Reply
      • [-]  silentbicycle 4 days ago link
        Whoa, that's even cheaper than the Asus WL-520GU I used for a similar project. (OpenWRT Wifi router + USB sound dongle => streaming music around the house) Good to know!
        Reply
      • [-]  rgoodwintx 4 days ago link
        I would love to see your process for building this. I'm about to start a commute again after working from home for a while, and that damn garage door is one of my weak points :)
        Reply
        • [-]  bockris 4 days ago link
          Make magazine has a similar project featured this month.

          http://makeprojects.com/Wiki/30#Section_12_000_Mile_Universa...

          Reply
    • [-]  Niksko 4 days ago link
      Read Cory Doctrow's book Makers. It wraps the possibilities of this sort of thing up in a nice narrative.

      The point of these is that nobody is really sure what we'll be able to do with them yet. But by lowering the barrier to entry to an affordable price, then people can tinker and come up with some great, innovative technologies.

      An example that I can think of off the top of my head is imagine if every piece of food you bought could connect to your wireless network via an extremely small but durable network adaptor. You couple this with a few sensors and you've got instant shopping lists based on what is in your fridge/pantry, instant recipes, used by date tracking and who knows what else.

      Reply
      • [-]  kaybe 4 days ago link
        Download link: http://craphound.com/makers/download/
        Reply
    • [-]  acous 4 days ago link
      I see it as a stepping stone. The tech will eventually trickle into mainstream and become so cheap that it's throwaway. Long term ideas off the top of my head: A tyre lets you know when it needs air or replacement. A plant contains explicit information about what nutrients it needs. A coffee maker prepare coffee for you when you get home.

      Longer term, when augmented reality glasses become useful it could open up some really cool opportunities. Instead of having to remember all the little mundane things, we'll be able to see them. Instead of having the world cluttered with LCDs and input devices, we'll be able to separate the object APIs from the interfaces. Not so we can fiddle with our phones to find the home automation app. It's so we'll be able to say "lights", "heat up some water for a shower", " show me who's at the door". Maybe my perspective is skewed, I grew up watching star trek. Isn't this sorta stuff a hackers dream?

      Reply
  • [-]  jnorthrop 7 days ago link
    This is a bit off-topic but I would encourage everyone to read Strangers for Dinner's privacy policy[1]. It is a fantastic example of being fully transparent about what they are collecting and why, and doing it with plain language. I like this example so much not only because of the execution but also because they are collecting some very sensitive information (gender, political preferences, etc.) and not hiding the fact.

    The only nit I would make to improve it is to not bury the privacy policy link in the footer but say something like "We collect some sensitive data, please read our privacy policy for details." To make sure people see it up front.

    Don't underestimate the power of building trust with new users.

    [1] http://strangersfordinner.com/privacy

    Reply
    • [-]  chewxy 7 days ago link
      Sorry. HN crashed the VPS. Trying to call the VPS hosting solution to get the server rebooted. This is the full text:

      Our Privacy Policy

      Your privacy is of utmost importance to us, and we would like to inform you about our policy for protecting your privacy online. As a business, we DO collect information from you, and we do it in two ways: Information we get from your usage of the system (see Google Analytics) and information you give us (see Facebook)

      Google Analytics

      We collect data using Google Analytics. We use it to analyze how users use this site, and make decisions to improve the website. Google Analytics uses 'cookies', which are not food, unfortunately. Cookies are text files placed on your computer to collect standard information about users in an anonymous form. The information collected from site will then be transmitted to Google, which then compiles statistical reports based on user activity for Strangers for Dinner

      We will never share this data with any third party. Google does not associate your information with any other data held by Google. Neither will we nor Google link or seek to link the collected anonymized information with the identity of the user. More information about Google's stance on privacy can be found here.

      Facebook

      We use Facebook to authenticate users. Asides from authentication, we also request some specific information about users. They are: Name, Age, Sex, Location, Political view, Religious View, Relationship Status, and Interests. As part of the terms of use, we require these basic information from users as those data are required for security purposes. These data are pulled from Facebook to reduce the need for users to fill in forms.

      We will never share any of these information to any third party except for law enforcement, should the need arise. Your data is safe with us.

      A Note on Personally Identifiable Information

      We realize that we are storing personally identifiable information by virtue of you providing us those data. We work hard to protect them. Nobody has, and will have access to your name or your relationship status, even as part of the matching processes. In the place for names and personally identifiable information, we require nicknames, which serves a dual purpose of preventing personally identifiable information from being shared, as well as a barrier to lower discrimination. However, these data may be used for analytical purposes to improve performance of the site.

      Last Modified: 30th April 2012

      Reply