Privacy has a way broader social and legal meaning than the dictionary definition of the word.
Narrowing it down to a oneliner from a dictionary is not particularly constructive.
And yes, I would say if Twitter did that, it could well be a breach of privacy. It would almost certainly be a breach of the law in most Western countries. Just because you have access to the data, doesn't mean you can just do with it whatever you like without the consent of the owner. Once that zip-file spreads, making the Twitter account private becomes pointless.
Why do so many people think copyright is something perfectly logical, but privacy protection, which has much more to do with protecting the rights of individuals, is something weird?
> It would almost certainly be a breach of the law in most Western countries.
Twitter already let's you download someone's tweet in a .json file. Are you saying that twitter is almost certainly breaking the law? Or is it something specifically evil with the .zip file?
We're not saying you should "just do with it whatever you like". What they're specifically doing is making it publicly available. Which it already was, because that's the definition of what public means. As the previous poster pointed out.
Public domain is not protected by copyright. Most countries (though not all) explicitly differentiates the laws of what's public and what's copyrighted. Usually, both are mutually exclusive.
>Privacy has a way broader social and legal meaning than the dictionary definition of the word.
Something made public and put on display for the world to see isn't and never was private by any possible logical definition.
>Once that zip-file spreads, making the Twitter account private becomes pointless.
And? Unlike the EU, there isn't such a thing as right to be forgotten in the USA, and for that matter, nor do I think it should be. Be careful what you put online and it will never be a problem.
I'd hate to be operating any kind of social service in the EU, when a single unauthenticated letter could completely destroy a good chunk of any social network.
I never read the Oink privacy policy because I assumed everything was public. It's kind of weird that they let you download anybodies -public- data, but in order for it to be a breach of privacy, it would have to be private in the first place.
Narrowing it down to a oneliner from a dictionary is not particularly constructive.
And yes, I would say if Twitter did that, it could well be a breach of privacy. It would almost certainly be a breach of the law in most Western countries. Just because you have access to the data, doesn't mean you can just do with it whatever you like without the consent of the owner. Once that zip-file spreads, making the Twitter account private becomes pointless.
Why do so many people think copyright is something perfectly logical, but privacy protection, which has much more to do with protecting the rights of individuals, is something weird?