.
Out of interest - Grin with cat attached
Previous Entry Next Entry
Out of interest Aug. 9th, 2004 11:49 am
Of those of you who're doing the LJ-crush meme, how many of you have read the small print?
Tags:

From: purplerabbits
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 10:57 am (Link)
That's certainly why I'm *not* doing it.
From: djm4
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 05:00 pm (Link)
It wouldn't stop me - I regard information given to a site like that as potentially public domain - I'm just not really very interested in the meme.
From: wildeabandon
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 11:03 am (Link)
I didn't read it, which may have been slightly foolish of me. That said, I'm not really terribly concerned about the information remaining private.

Didn't this sort of thing get discussed to death when the last secret crush meme started selling the information?
From: wechsler
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 11:06 am (Link)
That's precisely why I'm surprised so many people are doing this one, considering the nature of their small print.
From: serena_lesley
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 11:06 am (Link)
I did, and used an email address that gets spammed anyway and didn't put down anyone that I'd be upset by them finding out. It made me laugh actually.. 'an object lesson in the importance of reading small print' (or words to that effect)..
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
From: wechsler
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 11:23 am (Link)
From: azekeil
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 03:23 pm (Link)
I did. I disliked it and wouldn't use it for very much else and used a hotmail address to confirm my registration..
From: azekeil
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 04:37 pm (Link)
One disturbing thing to note is that anyone can sign up your user (and therefore discover who has a crush on you etc) without your knowledge or consent. The password it asks for is just for it's own site, not to LJ..
From: djm4
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 04:58 pm (Link)
It's difficult to see how they could arrange it to be otherwise without opening them to someone saying 'one disturbing thing to note is that they ask for your LJ password, so you're trusting them not to log-in to LJ as you...'

From: wechsler
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 05:03 pm (Link)
ISTR ciphergoth and skx had some thoughts in that area.
From: djm4
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 05:20 pm (Link)
Yes, but I remember said thoughts as being: 'it's all a bit of a nightmare, really'. I may well remember incorrectly, but it was mostly those that I based my comment on.
From: torsparkles
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 07:33 pm (Link)
There are solutions we came up with, involving posting an authentification token to the journal you claim you own - and other more convoluted ideas.

It's a solved problem, just unfortunate that LiveJournal itself doesnt' give you the hooks which would make it simple..
From: azekeil
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 05:22 pm (Link)
Actually other sites have used something along the lines of 'add this code to your interests list temporarily to prove you really are LJ user xyz'. A bit of a faff but it was better than nothing.
From: djm4
Date: August 10th, 2004 - 06:54 am (Link)
Yes, but that's got sod all to do with whether or not they ask you for your LJ password, which seemed to be the issue you originally had with the site. It was certainly the issue I was addressing.
From: azekeil
Date: August 10th, 2004 - 08:51 am (Link)
I'm sorry if I was unclear; Let's take you as an example. If you haven't chosen to sign up to the site, I could go along and register your user without your knowledge or consent because it requires no authentication of who is signing up. I could then log in and see who claimed to have a crush on you, which frankly I feel is an invasion of privacy caused by lack of forethought on the site designer's part. Of course, most people probably wouldn't realise that and sign up anyway.

The best defense therefore is to sign up..

Of course conspiracists may say that's exactly why the security has been left out...!
From: djm4
Date: August 10th, 2004 - 09:06 am (Link)
Actually, I understand that, but thanks for clarifying anyway.

I mistakenly thought that your comment about 'the password it asks you is for its own site...' was linked to your point, where as it was presumably separate - I apologise for confusing the two.
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
From: wechsler
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 07:06 pm (Link)
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
From: duranorak
Date: August 9th, 2004 - 09:25 pm (Link)
Even having read the Comments of the Paranoid I can't conceive of any way in which this could inconvenience me (though yes, I did read the TOS before signing up, mostly out of curiosity).
That's just me, though. I'm not telling it anything everyone doesn't know, just learning things *I* didn't. :)

E.
x