On 5 Jun 2009, at 15:36, Matt Lee wrote: > On the subject of leaks -- we should err on the side of caution with > regard to leaked albums. There are sites like http:// > diditleak.co.uk/ -- > we should use that data and make up a blacklist of albums, and > refuse to > log tracks from those albums, I think.
Personally, I don't like this idea. If implemented it should be optional (opt-in or opt-out I don't care). If I ask a piece of software to do something, it should do it or fail with an error message. I'd be pretty unhappy if a new version of syslogd decided that it was going to pick and choose which messages it was going to log based on some criteria that I didn't understand, didn't care about and couldn't change. If I scrobble something, then I want the site to record it. Also, assuming string matching is done to determine which album is being listened to (which is usually the case), it risks false positives. Better to build a selective-scrobble feature into clients, perhaps silencing scrobbles by user-configurable criteria - e.g. I might not want my extensive Shawaddywaddy collection to be scrobbled; someone else might want to scrobble the music they listen to, but not non- musical audio files such as recordings of lectures. Sketch of an implementation for Rhythmbox: Scrobble Free could check for the presence of a "private" flag in the ogginfo/ID3 and refuse to scrobble any such tracks. A rhythmbox plugin could be written enabling users to switch the flag on and off, and perhaps display a track's privacy status as an additional column in the playlist. It should be noted that this solution also benefits last.fm users. Ultimately, we should require as little information as possible, but allow users who do want to provide us with the data, to tell us everything they want to, so that we can use this information to provide a better service for them. The important thing is to provide a reasonable level of privacy as a default, after which people can choose to opt in and out of things. Switching off IP logging is a good step in that direction. E-mail accounts are another good area to look at. Other than that, I think we've already found a pretty good balance. With opt-outs, I think at some point we need to stop and say, "look, you can't opt out of that." If people don't want to share their music listening data, then why are they signing up to use a music-listening- data-sharing website? With libre.fm there is of course always the possibility of setting up your own private server, secured behind hundreds of layers of passwords, and with a clause in your last will and testament that it be encased in concrete and dumped at the bottom of the Atlantic in the event of your untimely demise. People who want abnormally high levels of privacy can always pursue that option. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:[email protected]> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> _______________________________________________ Libre-fm mailing list [email protected] http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/libre-fm
