CBS handed over USER DATA (including IP addresses) to the RIAA

soma-te said:
I might add that every other server you visit does not keep a link between your physical self (IP) and your site personae (...) is this true? I'm not so sure.

I think if you're determined to be suspicious, there's nothing anyone can say that will allay your fears. Staff statements, as well as those of the other parties concerned, have been good enough for the rest of us. There's a good overview of the story in Ars Technica this week: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/lastfmriaa-drama-round-2-denials-denials-denials.ars

Speaking for myself, I see the story as a personal attack from a poisonous little man who has a reputation for doing exactly the same to others. It's like wrongly accusing someone of a crime then people running around wondering if there's anything truth in it, when there never was. For example, I could say your next door neighbour likes children a little too much. Who will you believe? My unfounded accusation or your poor neighbour? I think that's the way to look at this story, not the minutiae of how long a 'short period of time' is.

My trust is intact. They've exceeded my expectations, which are default set to low! (hehe)


edit grrrr.... grammar. pah

WichitaQ said:
soma-te, you may feel free to be paranoid and suspicious, but there are absolutely no websites that won't log your IP. every thing you do is logged somewhere, even if you just connect and disconnect from your network.


why should last.fm be any different?You seem to see paranoid people everywhere, so who's really paranoid here? ;)

More Swedish ISPs Decide To Keep No Logs To Protect Users

Babs_05 said:
soma-te said:
I might add that every other server you visit does not keep a link between your physical self (IP) and your site personae (...) is this true? I'm not so sure.
What I meant, is that most of the sites people visit, do not come with profile/authentification, they therefore have a lot less information to cross reference. Of course, what goes for last fm goes for other social networks, or to some extent any site you can post some information onto.

Babs_05 said:
Speaking for myself, I see the story as a personal attack from a poisonous little man who has a reputation for doing exactly the same to others. It's like wrongly accusing someone of a crime then people running around wondering if there's anything truth in it, when there never was. For example, I could say your next door neighbour likes children a little too much. Who will you believe? My unfounded accusation or your poor neighbour? I think that's the way to look at this story, not the minutiae of how long a 'short period of time' is.
In this particular case, the analogy seems a bit strong and misleading. Again I do not speak of this very case, more of the questions that go with it. The techcrunch article provide little proof. I do not see it as a real issue in itself, but more like the initiative of the magazine "le tigre" which published a biography of someone based on the info found with google. It was a way of making people aware of the traces they leave on the internet. The process can be discussed, but it can make people more aware of how the tools they use work.
In this case the article might not be accurate, and its accusations might be completely delirious. But my point is that there are sensitive information kept by last.fm without us knowing why.

To go on with your metaphor : your unfounded accusation of my neighbour wouldn't have me trying to find truth in it (unless I don't know him well and you take time to make your story believable, and seemingly documented, in which case, I'm afraid anyone would have a hard time ignoring it completely). But would you trust with your offspring an old single man who's got a roomfull of little children toys and webcams ? I mean, if you bother to know him you could probably realize he's just a nursery nurse making sure he's above any suspicion by allowing psychorigid parents (which is a little bit what we are here with our musical tastes) to see their babysitted children all day long, anytime. That would not make him necessarily the kind of person you would have babysitting your children, but you would not consider him a criminal.

My concern is not even that last.fm stores your IP and links it to your profile for a "short amount of time" but that they would not take ten minutes to explain what is a short amount of time or how it is necessary for their system to work.

WichitaQ said:
jotakoi said:
More Swedish ISPs Decide To Keep No Logs To Protect Users
that's sweden, and she's in france, they're pretty messed up with the worldwide world, i doubt you'll see that in france.

Who's that french girl you are talking about ? Btw, the situation in France is indeed preoccupying...

WichitaQ said:
but again, i didn't know about that even though i believed it would appear somewhere. i was only referring to soma-te, trust me, i'm far from paranoid, otherwise i wouldn't do this (traffic monitor from my ISP, RIAA go sue me) :p

And as a matter of fact, I do not think I am really paranoid. I mean I am not gonna delete my account or anything. But we shouldn't write blank checks to the companies behind the sites we use. I am not overly worried. But if you look at the way things work, this "Web 2.0" consists in people designing a platform, which provides a sort of service. This sevice is more or less sharp and innovating (I believe that with this regard last.fm is one of the most interesting). But it is an empty shell until the users find the service interesting and populate it. And the more users, the more the service is attractive (to new users). To make money - which is the end goal of any company, even "social" ones - I see three means : subscription (which impedes the growth of the community, hence super-accounts, but a good basic service), advertising (which benefits being contextualized thanks to the data input from users) and selling the data added by users (I have no idea whether that applies to last.fm and do not suggest it does). We therefore have to stop believing that those who do provide excellent service do this solely to make the world a better place; and remind them once in a while that no matter how good the service, they also depend on their users. And most of all, users should make sure they are okay with what is done with the data they provide and companies should not overlook their users' questions no matter how paranoid they might seem. I mean I do not expect or demand anything from last.fm, I just feel they could be a bit clearer on what they do, and with whom. For instance, CBS is described as "another six thousand or so people helping out". I am not entirely sure this is how CBS saw themselves when they bought last.fm...

TechCrunch....yellow journalism at it's best.

Markmire said:
So..... http://torrentfreak.com/lastfms-data-is-useless-to-the-riaa-090523/

Exactly....it's nothing but a big facade. The alleged 'handed over' data is meaningless, it doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that you illegally downloaded those tracks, or that you even have that file on your computer.
I do love the way it brings all the paranoid and suspicious freaks out of the woodwork though, gotta laugh really.

If you don't quite get it yet, we are ALL being watched, everywhere...and every tom, dick and harry has much more personal information on us than what tracks we play on our computers.

It's pointless being paranoid about it, it's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays and it appears to be getting worse rather than better.

But, I suppose it gives people the chance to have 'freedom of speech' and make a mountain out of a tiny molehill.

Chill. :-)