Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NY Comic Con Takes Over Attendees' Twitter Accounts To Praise Itself

timothy posted 1 year,12 days | from the you're-loving-it dept.

Spam 150

Okian Warrior writes "Attendees to this year's New York Comic Con convention were allowed to pre-register their RFID-enabled badges online and connect their social media profiles to their badges — something, the NYCC registration site explained, that would make the 'NYCC experience 100x cooler! For realz.' Most attendees didn't expect "100x cooler" to translate into 'we'll post spam in your feed as soon as the RFID badge senses that you've entered the show,' but that seems to be what happened."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ooops! Sorry (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108097)

ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (5, Funny)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108103)

Morale of the story: low.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108113)

When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108129)

Well..., yeah. But that's asking an awful lot of a great many Twitter users.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108131)

They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (5, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108175)

They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.

more importantly YOU CAN NOT give just partial access to an app in twitter. you either give it all it's requesting or nothing and you can not go into your app settings and change. you can only revoke the whole app.

but the guys attending should really have smelled something funny when they were requesting post permissions along with other perms.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108841)

funny the same thing is true of android and that practice gets defended on /.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

davester666 (731373) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109819)

every time I use twitter to authenticate somewhere else, they always request everything but reading private messages and changing your password.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108177)

They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.

When you grant a third party access to sent Tweets on your behalf, don't you click through a warning telling you that? Why would you give a convention permission to send Tweets as you, and if you do, why would you be surprised when they do?

Re:Ooops! Sorry (5, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108407)

They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.

When you grant a third party access to sent Tweets on your behalf, don't you click through a warning telling you that? Why would you give a convention permission to send Tweets as you, and if you do, why would you be surprised when they do?

The problem is that there is a growing trend towards letting apps request permissions, and then giving the user two choices - accept all the permissions the app requests, or don't use the app at all. That is true of many online services, and it is true of Android as well (and likely other mobile OSes).

The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality. I'd probably go a step further and not make it possible for the application to know what permissions were granted, so that app authors don't just force the all-or-nothing situation back on users by refusing to run if full permissions are not granted. 99% of the time partial permissions only cause failure modes that the application has to handle gracefully anyway (no access to contacts is no different than a user who has no contacts, no access to location/network is no different than a user in a building, etc).

The all-or-nothing approach just gives app authors a club to hit users with - it puts the app author in control of the device, and not the user. Not running mobile apps really isn't an acceptable alternative.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108699)

The all-or-nothing approach just gives app authors a club to hit users with - it puts the app author in control of the device, and not the user. Not running mobile apps really isn't an acceptable alternative.

I agree that it sucks, but how is it different from any other negotiation in the history of the world?

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

faedle (114018) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109005)

Blackberry did this: they allowed you to CHOOSE what permissions you granted apps, not present you with a "take it or leave it" all-or-nothing choice.

If RIM figured it out a decade ago, I'm sure everybody else can.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109841)

If RIM figured it out a decade ago, I'm sure everybody else can.

Their financial success shows that this method will definitely prevail!

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

Calydor (739835) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109423)

It is different because you don't get to give a counter-offer in the form of a modified list of permissions you are okay with.

This is not a negotiation. It's extortion.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45110003)

It is different because you don't get to give a counter-offer in the form of a modified list of permissions you are okay with.

When someone goes all-in on the poker table, you don't get to say, "aww, but I wanted to only bet half of that...." If they were up for counter-offers, they'd have multiple versions of the app.

So, no, it's not extortion. It sucks, but grow a pair and move on with life.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

RoboRay (735839) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108803)

The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.

If you take control of your device rather than allowing your service provider or the OEM to control it, you can do just that. On my rooted Android devices, I revoke any permissions that I don't want an app to have.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108993)

iOS does it on a permission as needed basis. Twitter wants to use my location? Okay, I'm fine with my tweets indicating my location. Twitter wants to use my contacts? No, thank you Twitter, I'll spam people myself.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109049)

The better solution is to allow the application to request a default list of permissions, and then give the user the opportunity to accept or modify them. The application would still work if the permissions are modified, though with limited functionality.

You know what security model you're referring to? Blackberry.

My ancient (2 year old) blackberry lets me selectively grant or deny application permissions on a granular basis. I can even selectively grant or deny network connectivity, so that an application can connect to an ip address using https, but can't connect to a different ip address by http.

The Blackberry security model has been thought out by some very smart people at RIM.

Unfortunately, the market really doesn't seem interested in security, even as more people put their entire life on their smartphone.

Sad.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

davester666 (731373) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109849)

well, I would say they aren't interested in a very secure, obsolete smartphone.

Up until what, 8 months ago, they were selling 3 year old technology with a 5 or more year old operating system, and then they released a brand new, buggy OS on 2 year old technology. Without a keyboard [which was the primary reason most people were still using BlackBerries].

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

h4nk (1236654) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110133)

Spamming a person's feed may in fact be a violation of Twitter's broadcast terms: http://support.twitter.com/entries/114233 [twitter.com]

"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused access (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108691)

In the few cases an app has posted on my social media accounts, it's been a benign (and true) message like "raymorris is at NY Comic Con". That's what a respectable organization might do and what I'd expect from a company that wants to keep my business.

On the other hand, what they did is misleading and they are assholes for doing it. Just because I give someone access to something doesn't excuse them for abusing that access. One of my employees has access to the company checkbook. If she abuses that access she could go to jail.

Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc (2)

tverbeek (457094) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109551)

NYCC's mistake was to jump ahead to what they'd be able to get away with in a few years. If they'd kept the tweets "benign (and true)" as you suggest, people would've squawked briefly, but gotten over it and accepted it as "the new normal" for businesses to tweet bland ads in their feed. (One step beyond what Facebook already does with their "Ray Morris likes Starbucks" ads.) Then, in 2 or 3 years, when the ads started to get more huckstery and misleading, they'd probably get away with that too. The secret to boiling a live frog is to turn the temperature up slowly.

Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc (1)

zippthorne (748122) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109737)

In ten pages of google scholar results, I couldn't find a single one where someone had actually performed the famous "boiling frog experiment."

I'm left to conclude that it has never actually been attempted and odds are fair that the frog will try to jump out when it gets too hot, unless the pot has a lid....

Re:"hawkguy is at nycc" vs. their lies. abused acc (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109919)

its definitely a captive experiment.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108185)

They'd be fined if it was in the UK, as it'd be classed as an advertisement and you're not allowed to advertise without explicitly stating it's an ad. Maybe theres a similar rule in US?

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108367)

They'd be fined if it was in the UK, as it'd be classed as an advertisement and you're not allowed to advertise without explicitly stating it's an ad. Maybe theres a similar rule in US?

No, here the advertisers make payments to the lawmakers via a group known as "lobbyists" in order to circumvent things like this... along with other inconveniences like truth in advertising, legible print on television disclaimers, etc..

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108851)

Some examples of this:

http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Remit-Social-Media.aspx [cap.org.uk]

The basic idea is that adverts must not dishonestly be represented as impartial consumer comments. e.g. I could right now say that Dr. Pepper is the best mass-market cola out there. I'd likely run afoul of the Advertising Standards Agency if I was receiving compensation for posting that message.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108345)

So you are saying that to attend this event, you needed to hand over your twitter username and password? No exceptions, or opt-outs?

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108601)

They didn't "ask" for permission. They inferred it from people providing their twitter account info. There wasn't even an "opt-out" option because people didn't know this was going to happen.

Of course, because if they *had* asked, I imagine the answer would have always been "no" - unless you're someone that likes other people putting words in your mouth. I'm sure ReedPop was operating under the idea that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission - or they're just dicks.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108195)

When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.

One gets the impression that NYCC was...tactful... in eliding exactly what level of privilege delegation users were clicking through, and certainly less than forthright about how those privileges would be put to use.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108243)

When you use your Twitter account for authentication, it doesn't need to be authorised for tweeting. You only need to avoid places that request that permission.

One gets the impression that NYCC was...tactful... in eliding exactly what level of privilege delegation users were clicking through, and certainly less than forthright about how those privileges would be put to use.

There's not much "tactful" about this screen (sample image):

http://readwrite.com/files/files/files/images/twitter-new-oauth-4-28.png

NYCC are dicks for doing this, but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108915)

...but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.

Absofuckinglutely! Shocking behaviour on the part of the advertiser, but greatly enabled by idiot users. They can't even argue this was buried in 6 pages of legalese - it's right there in front of them in a short bulleted list.

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108187)

ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication.

Would you expect the sort of abhuman scum who would pull a stunt like this to even be capable of comprehending the concepts of 'sincerity' or 'remorse'? Not only do they not exhibit them, they probably don't possess them, and may not even have the cognitive mechanisms required to acquire an understanding of them.

"we were probably too enthusiastic in our messaging and eagerness to spread the good word about NYCC. We have since shut down this service completely and apologize for any perceived overstep"

I thought that that sort of invasive narcissism was only found among inebriated 'pick-up artists' trying to avoid going home alone toward the end of an evening...

Re:Ooops! Sorry (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108441)

ReedPop's apology was insincere and showed no remorsefulness. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

Sounds like they doubled the wrong vowel in their name.

Current Trend (3, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109771)

Morale of the story: don't use your social media accounts for any type of authentication

I just finished up at a company that creates mobile apps for clients (under contract). Pretty much every app being made now (by all companies not just the one I worked at) uses at least one of your social media accounts to log in. It saves them from having to create and manage their own authentication mechanism. It also saves them from lawsuits etc if and when someone hacks their user database and steals the information because they don't want to spend the money to create a reliably safe user/security system themselves (or on the other hand if they just aren't bright enough to).

So good luck with that, at least for now. And the truth is, most users aren't bright enough to understand the consequences of allowing any and every app out there access to their social media accounts and potentially a tonne of their personal data. That, with only the trust of the company that build the app's integrity because they said they might have one in the copy on the page. Meanwhile the one thousand line user agreement designed to cover their ass no matter what they do says they can change their mind without telling you. Or after you are so committed to it that psychologically you can't break free... kind of like Google wanting to suddenly use all your profile information in advertisements. Now I understand why they wanted so much to get people to change their usernames to their real names. It wasn't for protection. Glad I didn't change mine.

lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108121)

I'll blame the users if they never checked what "connecting to twitter account" means.

Slashdot is Great! (3, Funny)

Hominy Chef (181046) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108127)

Slashdot is amazing!

Re:Slashdot is Great! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108225)

Slashdot is amazing!

And me without mod points! If I had some I'd mod you "Super Duper Slashsightful!"

Re:Slashdot is Great! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109017)

#/. Slashdot has the coolest Anonymous Cowards on the planet! For realz!

Did I do it right?

And Nerds, please, shower! (4, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108197)

In a message pasted on the event’s official website, Comic Con demands that nerdy attendees wash themselves and use deodorant after they emerge from their moms’ basements to attend the event.In a message pasted on the event’s official website, Comic Con demands that nerdy attendees wash themselves and use deodorant after they emerge from their moms’ basements to attend the event.

Apparently this is such a problem Comic Con listed “shower” as item No. 3 on its event “survival” checklist.

“Things tend to get hot at NYCC with so many fans around and you don’t want to be the stinky one!” the organizers wrote. “Do everyone a favor and shower before and wear clean clothes!”

Apparently this is such a problem Comic Con listed “shower” as item No. 3 on its event “survival” checklist.

“Things tend to get hot at NYCC with so many fans around and you don’t want to be the stinky one!” the organizers wrote. “Do everyone a favor and shower before and wear clean clothes!” http://nypost.com/2013/10/10/comic-con-plea-shower/ [nypost.com]

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (3, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108393)

It's not Flamebait since it's the truth!

Clicky da linky before modding.

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108527)

That doesn't stop it from being offtopic. And it also doesn't make us forget the fact that you actually used the phrase "clicky da linky" as if we weren't going to notice.

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109033)

#NYCC Which item number is it requiring you do double all of your sentences in your post?Which item number is it requiring you do double all of your sentences in your post?
#NYCC

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109079)

I don't know why that happened happened.

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110089)

:^)

It was hard to read with that. It wasn't like that when you hit "Preview"?

Re:And Nerds, please, shower! (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110159)

:^)

It was hard to read with that. It wasn't like that when you hit "Preview"?

I was going out the door and did it fast, read it when I got back and thought, "WTF?". Of my 50 or so posts here, perhaps 2 have been error free. :^(

Howz it go? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108235)

Oh yeah EaT ShIt aNd DIE fOr ReAlZ!

Stupid is as stupid does. What genius said that...oh yeah.

Prosecute them ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108249)

... for identity theft. Period.

Re:Prosecute them ... (4, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108283)

The people allowed the app, complete with special warning, to 'post tweets on their behalf'.

There comes a time in your life where you take responsibility for your own actions. For the most part, we call this adulthood.

Re:Prosecute them ... (2, Informative)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108333)

An established principle in the law is that there are certain rights you cannot sign away. For instance, you cannot legally, voluntarily or otherwise, enter into slavery in the United States of America. It remains for the courts to decide if one's identity is one of those rights. Prosecute them.

Re:Prosecute them ... (4, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108381)

But they didn't steal an identity. Just requested allowance to post on a Twitter feed. Unless they did something other than what the article said, there's no identity theft going on. Giving someone access to use your broadcast mechanism is hardly equal to slavery.

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108479)

Someone cannot apply for credit, file their taxes, or vote under another's identity, even with the rightful identity holder's complicity. The people whose identities were hijacked were not the only victims here, by any means. Those who read the posts were deliberately given the impression that the individual posts were the product of the person whose identity was attached to the post. That's fraud. Prosecute them.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

russotto (537200) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108487)

Someone cannot apply for credit, file their taxes, or vote under another's identity, even with the rightful identity holder's complicity.

That's only true for voting. You can delegate someone else to file taxes on your behalf (though if they are paid for it they have to sign off as well), and you can give someone power of attorney which would allow them to apply for credit on your behalf.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108593)

They can do those things on your behalf, but it must be so stated, legally and formally and they may not assume your identity to do so. They must do so under their own identity, on your behalf.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1, Interesting)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108553)

Here's the flaw with that logic. Look at this comment. Whose words is it? Mine, jmac_the_man, and as Slashdot puts it at the bottom of the screen, "Comments owned by the poster." But who is saying it? Slashdot is repeating these words to you (it's their servers, after all), and attributing them to me.

Now, it's implicit (and probably explicit too) in the Slashdot ToS (and the user's expectations) that Slashdot gets to repeat back anything I type into the comment box, and further, that they get to attribute it to me (as long as I don't post as Anonymous Coward.) I am authorizing Slashdot to use my identity to repeat my words back to the rest of their community. (I use the jmac_the_man handle in several other places on the internet, most of which are linked with my real name. It's not exactly my identity, but it's an OK proxy. Also, several people do use their real names.)

Now what if you tell Slashdot to post something, and then change your mind about it? Slashdot doesn't have a delete option, and thus, they get to keep repeating something to their community, using your identity, that you would rather they not repeat. You have given a third party, Slashdot, permission to speak on your behalf, and thus they get to do so.

The organizers of Comic Con aren't any different. If you give them permission to speak on your behalf, they get to speak on your behalf. If you don't like that, don't let them speak on your behalf.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108623)

What your are describing is a situation where the word posted did, in fact, originate with you; you simply want to disown them after the fact. That is substantially different than the case where the words did not originate with you and you were given no opportunity to vet them before they were assigned to you.

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109851)

The difference is, presumably you, jmac_the_man, actually typed that message. They can repeat what you typed to anyone they like, whenever someone reads the thread. By creating an account and giving Slashdot permission to 'speak' on your behalf, you authorized this.

If instead of repeating what you actually typed, they edit it? Maybe they censor a word here or there. Well okay, that's a bit less acceptable. Still, not entirely unreasonable.

If the editors of Slashdot created entire fictional comments and attributed them to you, just to make themselves look awesomely cool and popular? THAT would be unreasonable and go far beyond the bounds of what anyone should expect. And that would be the true comparison to what happened here, rather than your hyperbole about 'changing your mind'.

Yes, your last line is entirely true. But what Slashdot does and what these jokers have done? Not at all comparable.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

Ksevio (865461) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108963)

Are you really comparing someone being forced into slavery with a company sending a tweet using a person's twitter handle?

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109141)

No, that was just an example of a right you can't sign away. Indeed, a closer analogy would be indentured servitude, a contract that was "freely" entered into, but wherein one relinquished one's rights as an individual, for a specified period. Note that it was the same stroke of the pen that eliminated slavery, which also eliminated indentured servitude .

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109821)

People like you cheapen the meaning of everything.

There's also an established principle in the law where you have to be able to show some kind of harm or imminent harm in order to sue. You would be laughed out of court.

Your principle is absurd, and would make ghostwriting [wikipedia.org] a form of fraud.

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110075)

Harm to one's reputation or public image is a demonstrable and prosecutable harm. If one were to enjoy a reputation as a sensible and judicious person, some of the comments I've seen, which were purported to be the postings in question, would do harm to it.

Your comment does draw further attention to the potential harm that might befall the readers of such postings, who would have been wilfully mislead.

In ghost writing the individual for whom the writing service is provided has knowledge of the product and editorial rights over it. The people whose identities were abused, here, had no such opportunity to control what was published under their names.

To suggest that I "cheapen the meaning of everything" is offensive, cheap, and wrong. It is you who cheapen the milieu of rational discourse at Slashdot. You should be ashamed.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

retchdog (1319261) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110183)

Well, in this case, they did agree in advance, quite clearly, when the app asked for privileges. The analogy would be hiring a ghostwriter with an agreement to not exercise editorial control, which is just fine (barring cases of libel). In fact, that's almost exactly what they did.

Yes, significant harm to reputation is actionable. This is insignificant.

As an aside, wouldn't making an agreement to allow an unknown third party to post anything on one's behalf make one, ipso facto, not a sensible and judicious person?

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110295)

While you may have a point regarding the act of giving such permission being an indictment against one's judiciousness, that has no immediate bearing on whether one has such a reputation in the first place.

Obviously, significance is in the eye of the reputation holder, potentially to be determined by the court.

The real point is making this an expensive enough episode for the perpetrators to discourage such behavior in the future. By most accounts, it came as a surprise to the victims that postings had been made without their approval. This creates considerable question as to whether the perps made a good-faith effort to inform them of what they were agreeing to.

Garnering misplaced trust may not be actionable in and of itself, but deceit to gain and or abuse of that trust can be. A material question, then, is whether the attendees so exploited actually had a "100x cooler" experience or whether they felt betrayed, ripped-off and demeaned. Evidence suggests the latter and actionable misconduct by Comic Con.

Astroturfing is reprehensible enough without hijacking peoples' identities to do it.

Re:Prosecute them ... (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108859)

The people allowed the app, complete with special warning, to 'post tweets on their behalf'.

Problem is, there is no way to say "install the app, but block all tweet-related permissions"

Can't install anything on Android nowdays. Each app wants permissions to make phone calls, take pictures with your camera (without your knowledge, not just while it is used) or read address book and current phone state. No good reason for the app to want this, but no way to install without allowing everything the app asks for.

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109779)

My BB10 device let's me select which permissions to permit and deny per application. The application still runs even if you turn everything off. Obviously, the parts turned off just no-op when called.

Too bad Android is so far behind the curve nowadays.

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109855)

You can choose to install Android apps written by people who aren't bastards?

The mOTP app on my Android doesn't want ANY permissions, nor does the PwdHash app. Obviously if you want Free Angry Pigs Game then it's going to get the money back by spying on you. So don't install that crap.

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

preflex (1840068) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109885)

Can't install anything on Android nowdays. Each app wants permissions to make phone calls, take pictures with your camera (without your knowledge, not just while it is used) or read address book and current phone state. No good reason for the app to want this, but no way to install without allowing everything the app asks for.

There are several ways to install Android applications without allowing everything the app asks for. The best one is called openpdroid [xda-developers.com] .

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109961)

Problem is, there is no way to say "install the app, but block all tweet-related permissions"

No, GP is right. The problem is that people installed the app.

Seriously, you give an app access permissions to Twitter: a platform used to send out messages.
What on earth could the app do with those permissions besides sending out messages???

Re:Prosecute them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109087)

There comes a time in your life where you take responsibility for your own actions. For the most part, we call this adulthood.

Ha. Responsibility for my own actions? Clearly you're not a lawyer.

Lawyers will explain how everything is someone else's fault, and you can sue them for negligence and butthurt (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt)

Re:Prosecute them ... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109385)

An app that allows you to write and publish a tweet through it, or an app that allows you to tweet things at your choosing (eg. "share this with your Twitter followers"), requires the same permissions. And that is probably what most people expected - the app would, say, have a listing of all the booths and such, and allow you, among other things, to send "I'm at the _____" tweets. Nobody really expects an app to just send out advertising tweets. This is perhaps a flaw in the permissions system, having two very different things be bound to the same permission, but there's not really a technical way to tell if a tweet was written (or at least approved) by the user, or if it's automatic.

Fortunately, there is likely a legal solution. According to the Twitter TOS, section 9, subsection v, which prohibits spamming, this may be cause to ban NYCC from Twitter. It may also fall under their rules regarding impersonation or automation. And even if their rules do not currently cover this, I expect Twitter will add rules to prevent such in the future, because it's not in their interests to have unwarranted and unpaid-for advertising being fraudulently sent through users' accounts.

Nerds (1, Funny)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108253)

Let's face it, we are talking nerds, so in some sense no real harm was done, just maintaining the pecking order.

Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108259)

You'd think they'd get more value out of hijacking Twitter accounts of people who had friends besides the other people at Comic Con...

Stupid users to lazy to read (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108297)

When you connect your social media account to somethiing, it's reasonable to expect that every permission that they describe they are requesting they are actually going to use. If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108337)

What I like about Facebook is I can allow an external service to post to my wall, so only I can see it.
Twitter, as far I I know, does not give you that freedom to trick these spammers.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (1)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108429)

Fair point... but when the service is first connecting to your account on the social site, it does, at least in my experience, always tell you exactly what permissions are being asked for. If there's any that you're not happy with, then you probably shouldn't be giving permission in the first place. If you can, after the fact, go and adjust those permissions so that they only impact you personally, that' might be okay, but if the service tries to use your account as soon as you've connected to it, then there's not going to be any opportunity for you to adjust such settings before it's gone and done something you may not have really been comfortable with.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108413)

If you're not comfortable with this, then don't connect the account to the service. Period.

Why does it need to be this way? Why not give the user granular access to permissions? Platforms like Twitter/Android/etc give way too much control to apps and not enough to the user - the user shouldn't be given all-or-nothing choices like this.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (2)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108453)

If you can do that, then that's fine... often with these types of things, it's an all-or-nothing deal.... if you don't give them permission for everything they've asked for, you can't connect your account to the site. My point is that there's just so many people don't even read what's right in front of their own faces when permission is being explicitly asked for, and then they are all shocked and upset when something they didn't expect actually happens...

I dunno... call me an unsympathetic boob, I guess... but I actually read that stuff.... sure, I can be fairly confident that they aren't asking for anything illegal (and would have legal remedy available to me if they were), but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't asking me for information or permissions I ordinarily would be uncomfortable with.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (1)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108873)

Hmm people not reading fine print of legalese because it is annoying useless, and you can't use the new shiny anyways and in software you can't even get a refund.

In a world where bleach bottles have to say do not drink, hair dyers come with warnings for external use only, Fireplaces come with warnings that say may get HOT.

Do you really think people read legalese? Besides if you want to use that app you have to sign up for it. you can ignore the new app but then your not part of the social scene.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (1)

retchdog (1319261) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110107)

oh christ, it wouldn't help. people would just clamor for granularity on the level of "allow the app to post for me, but only if it makes me look cool, according to undefined standards decided retroactively by the twitter mob," and then be shocked (shocked!) when this convention is breached.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108475)

*too *something *'Period.' is not a sentence.

If I were you, I would worry about my own stupidity and laziness first.

Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read (0)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108517)

Fail on both.

The former was a typo, not an indication that I don't know or don't care about grammar. Your latter objection is incorrect as well, as an interjection can stand alone in any sentence.

Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108989)

Here's a few more interjections to add to your collection:

Fuck you! Fucking cunt! Eat shit!

Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read (0)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109127)

The former and latter are imperative sentences, and not actually interjections. The middle one is name-calling and also not an interjection. "Fuck" and "Shit" by themselves can be interjections, however.

Exclamation points aren't what define interjections, by the way... this is a fairly common misconception.

Re:Stupid users *TOO* lazy to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109177)

ZING! What a burn!

(erm sorry about the bad words, I am drunk and angry for reasons which have nothing to do with you, have a nice day fella)

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108965)

I concur. "Period." The most smug, self-satisfied shitty little remark that exists in the American language.

I like those cunts who say "Sigh." too. Is that a reflection of your mode of speech in the real world? Because if it is, I'm guessing that you get the shit kicked out of you on the rare occasions that you venture outside.

Fuck off and die with your pathetic, whining, nerdy little catchphrases.

Re:Stupid users to lazy to read (1)

trytoguess (875793) | 1 year,12 days | (#45109923)

Well, true. On the flip side, if I may make an analogy, just because I let some painters into my house doesn't mean they can do whatever they want inside. Still, the thing that really irritates me is Comic Con doesn't HAVE to do this. Their tickets sold out almost instantly. Even con volunteers had difficulty getting in. Why in blazes do they have to act like some shady spammer desperate to get noticed?

"inventor" of the tech (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108435)

I actually pioneered the use of this technology at Bonaroo of 2011. My company brought the use of rfid to the concert and event seen as tickets and eventually added social integration and cashless solutions. We used it at the largest festivals across north America and many oversees including Coachella, Austin city limits, Quebec summer music festival and lollapalooza. The stuff we could do with social media always had possibilities, but the event organisers only ever used it for posting generally lame "this person entered the festival!" Messages; though later, some smart events actually used it to help people keep track and post bands that they saw and get info on those bands. Generally, the event organisers are lame about it though even when you tell them they are not using it intelligently.

Re: "inventor" of the tech (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108885)

So, was being a contractor on the Death Star your side job, or was it your primary employment before it was destroyed?

I ask because I wonder how difficult it is to locate jobs to assist in the creation of technologies that will obviously be used for evil, yet still allow one to retain some plausible deniability. There's always some far-fetched scenario where this shit could be used for good... even the Death Star. It's still self-delusion, though.

Good luck on your future endeavors. I bet the NSA is hiring; seems right up your alley.

Re: "inventor" of the tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109559)

Your argument is flawed. If we take it at face value, then the whole concept of RFID and NFC is evil, so you need to condemn the people that came up with it, and all phone manufacturers. As a matter of fact, you should condemn Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, as terrorists use it.

I created a useful product that allowed people to enter festivals at extraordinarily fast rates (2000+ people/hour per gate), and drastically cut down ticket prices due to a steep reduction in ticket forgery, theft, and scalping. As well as "enhancing" the festival/event experience through quick cashless solutions, and other useful uses of being able to quickly identify an individual. So, what have you done with your life to help millions of others? If you ever had, which I'm sure you haven't, I'm sure I could find a way to twist it into something evil too. Since I'll be in upper management on the Death Star soon, I'll make sure you have an inside track to a good job there.

Re: "inventor" of the tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109573)

Also, we only used Facebook during my time there, and always made it very clear the posts were FROM the event. I personally would have refused to do otherwise. When you leave a company though, not much you can do to control what was made.

I'm gonna go enjoy my time now with Einstein on the imperial bridge.

Let this be a warning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108585)

Let this be a warning!

Attendees of next month's NY Midget Porn Con take note ...

Re:Let this be a warning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109065)

Are you the organizer, hopeful attendee, or star performer?

Re:Let this be a warning! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109219)

It sounds like you're looking for a job.

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45108635)

would you connect your account to a badge?

Ok (2)

The Cat (19816) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108935)

Spam is:

1. Unsolicited
2. Commercial
3. Bulk
4. Off-topic

It must be all four or it is not spam.

And yep, I was on the Internet when the term was invented.

It is impossible for anything posted to a Twitter feed to be spam, since seeing it requires you to follow that feed. That fails the first test, therefore it is not spam. Case closed, end of discussion.

Learn what the word means before you use it. Spam is not "anything I don't want to read."

Re:Ok (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | 1 year,12 days | (#45108977)

It is impossible for anything posted to a Twitter feed to be spam, since seeing it requires you to follow that feed.

By that logic, it is impossible for anything posted in a newsgroup to be spam, since seeing it requires you to read that newsgroup. Which is a pretty silly interpretation, given the history involved.

You're not the only person here who "was on the Internet when the term was invented," you know.

Re:Ok (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109085)

Spam is:

1. Unsolicited
2. Commercial
3. Bulk
4. Off-topic

It must be all four or it is not spam.

And yep, I was on the Internet when the term was invented.

But were you watching original airings of Monty Python when the term was appropriated?

Re:Ok (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | 1 year,12 days | (#45110177)

You might have been on the Internet when spam was invented, but it sounds like you haven't used Twitter much.

Twitter has a feature called "retweet" which, for example, would allow me to post someone else's tweet on my own timeline, thereby allowing users who had not subscribed to the initial feed to see it.

The other thing is that the English language is a living one; meaning that the precise definition of words can (and do) change over time. The best example I can think of in a computing sense is the word "hacker" which has evolved into a word with negative connotations. "Spam" may well be another example.

ma8e (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#45109199)

they are Come on core team. They United States of and executes a BSDI is also dead, most. LLok at the would choose to use declined in market
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?