Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Max and 99

Collecting data - TOU

Recommended Posts

Re: Groundspeak Terms of Use

How do you interpret this? What would be an example of violating this term?

 

D. Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to:

 

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Re: Groundspeak Terms of Use

How do you interpret this? What would be an example of violating this term?

D. Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to:

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

 

(To me) it's people joining the site just to send members spam.  Like the creepy "I saw you and ..." we got for a while.

 

But I've always wondered whether 3rd-party stat sites violated this.  Collecting your stats without asking for your permission. 

I never gave mine...

I figure (might be wrong...) that they need to do that, otherwise those who care about their "stats" wouldn't be correct

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Re: Groundspeak Terms of Use

How do you interpret this? What would be an example of violating this term?

 

D. Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to:

 

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

 

This is a common rule for web sites.  Spammers aren't allowed to harvest valuable "verified" email addresses and other personal info.  The site may seem like a gold mine of user data for the profit of Spammers.  A condition of using the site is that you agree not to mine the site.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I find this part most interesting:

 

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion.

 

They seem to do this a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

I do that every time I download a PQ, don't I? Is that what you're wondering?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:
5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

I do that every time I download a PQ, don't I? Is that what you're wondering?

 

No.

 

Unless in Groundspeak's sole discretion they decide otherwise.

 

In other words - what you think means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

Slightly off topic, but this is the TOU I am most worried about. I'd rather the known bugs be fixed so I'm not tempted to exploit them. 😁

 

Abuse or exploit bugs, undocumented features, design errors or problems in our services.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:
9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.

I do that every time I download a PQ, don't I? Is that what you're wondering?

I wouldn't think that contents of a PQ constitute "personal data".

Instead, I would think personal data to be things like email addresses, real names, addresses, etc.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

While we're on the subject of privacy, it seems to me that the audit log on PMO caches is a problem.  Personally I find it to be quite creepy and really wish that it was discontinued.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

While we're on the subject of privacy, it seems to me that the audit log on PMO caches is a problem.  Personally I find it to be quite creepy and really wish that it was discontinued.

 

Creepy how?

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

While we're on the subject of privacy, it seems to me that the audit log on PMO caches is a problem.  Personally I find it to be quite creepy and really wish that it was discontinued.

Are you aware that there is an autid log on every cache?  But only on the PMO caches can the CO see/view it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Are you aware that there is an autid log on every cache?  But only on the PMO caches can the CO see/view it.

 

I'm not.  Please explain.  Thanks.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Creepy how?

 

Well after a few years in the game I didn't know anything about the audit logs.  None of my caches are PMO and I had never heard about this feature (and I don't expect the average player would have done).

Then one day there was a new puzzle cache published in my area.  I looked at the cache page many many times over the weekend as I was working on it.  Then I got a message from the CO saying something like 'crikey you've looked at the page more times than I have'.  I couldn't understand how they would know that, and so then I learned about the audit log.

Yes it does seem creepy to me that the CO knows exactly when and how often I have viewed their listing.  It seems an invasion of my privacy and it seems to me that it is no business of the CO.  I'd be very surprised if my opinion is unusual.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

Are you aware that there is an autid log on every cache?  But only on the PMO caches can the CO see/view it.

 

Yes I would expect it to be the case that reviewers could see this.  However it seems unreasonable, and I don't see the value, in COs having access to this information.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Well after a few years in the game I didn't know anything about the audit logs.  None of my caches are PMO and I had never heard about this feature (and I don't expect the average player would have done).

Then one day there was a new puzzle cache published in my area.  I looked at the cache page many many times over the weekend as I was working on it.  Then I got a message from the CO saying something like 'crikey you've looked at the page more times than I have'.  I couldn't understand how they would know that, and so then I learned about the audit log.

Yes it does seem creepy to me that the CO knows exactly when and how often I have viewed their listing.  It seems an invasion of my privacy and it seems to me that it is no business of the CO.  I'd be very surprised if my opinion is unusual.

Still don't see how your privacy has been invaded. Apart from the fact you have viewed the COs cache what private information was obtained? None as far as I can see. On the contrary a CO may see someone, such as yourself, who may be having difficulty with the puzzle and possibly offer some assistance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Ja, ik zou verwachten dat recensenten dit kunnen zien. Het lijkt echter onredelijk, en ik zie de waarde niet, dat CO's toegang hebben tot deze informatie.

Wat betekend PMO?

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, MarFraVerVoo said:

Wat betekend PMO?

Alleen Premium-lid?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Yes it does seem creepy to me that the CO knows exactly when and how often I have viewed their listing.  It seems an invasion of my privacy and it seems to me that it is no business of the CO.  I'd be very surprised if my opinion is unusual.

 

It's the CO's cache! How can it be 'no business' of theirs that people are or are not looking at the cache page?

 

It's not even like the CO knows exactly when you're looking. The CO can see who visited, how many times and when they first and last visted. That's it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2018 at 4:15 AM, noncentric said:

I wouldn't think that contents of a PQ constitute "personal data". 

Instead, I would think personal data to be things like email addresses, real names, addresses, etc.

 

I would like to agree with your interpretation but a rewiewer told me that also your geocaching nickname is a personal data and HQ confirmed that I am not allowed to use other players nicknames on cache page without their consent. It is possible that PQ contains personal data.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I would like to agree with your interpretation but a rewiewer told me that also your geocaching nickname is a personal data and HQ confirmed that I am not allowed to use other players nicknames on cache page without their consent. It is possible that PQ contains personal data.

 

Which is silly because I mention other cachers in my logs all the time, have never sought permission and those logs become part of the cache page.

 

I have to wonder how many of these rules are made up on the spot on a whim with zero thought.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I would like to agree with your interpretation but a rewiewer told me that also your geocaching nickname is a personal data and HQ confirmed that I am not allowed to use other players nicknames on cache page without their consent. It is possible that PQ contains personal data.

 

Does that mean the "Congratulations to Joe Cacher for FTF" people often put on their cache pages are no longer allowed? But, um, the FTF has already put their nickname on the cache page at the top of their log, so am I required to delete their log as well?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

I'd be very surprised if my opinion is unusual.

 

I agree with you.   May not exactly be a privacy issue, but as in your example it does seem a bit stalkerish.  I think this does relate mostly to puzzles - I can’t think of other reasons for many repeat visits to a cache page.  I hate the thought that my attempts are being monitored.  If I see a PMO puzzle, I will do my absolute best to keep my visits to a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

If I see a PMO puzzle, I will do my absolute best to keep my visits to a minimum.

 

Bizarre.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I can’t think of other reasons for many repeat visits to a cache page.

 

I often look back at the cache pages of my favourites as they're generally places I really enjoyed visiting and I like reading the experiences of others and seeing what photos they've posted. Likewise I often revisit the cache pages of my DNFs to see if others are faring better than I did. If my doing so bothers some PMO owners, well, sorry.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Bizarre.

 

Is it really ‘bizarre’ not wanting your online activity monitored?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

I often look back at the cache pages of my favourites as they're generally places I really enjoyed visiting and I like reading the experiences of others and seeing what photos they've posted. Likewise I often revisit the cache pages of my DNFs to see if others are faring better than I did. If my doing so bothers some PMO owners, well, sorry.

 

I don’t see why any COs would be bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I often look back at the cache pages of my favourites as they're generally places I really enjoyed visiting and I like reading the experiences of others and seeing what photos they've posted. Likewise I often revisit the cache pages of my DNFs to see if others are faring better than I did. If my doing so bothers some PMO owners, well, sorry.

 

I don’t see why any COs would be bothered.

 

To be honest I don’t think those occasional nostalgic re-visits really compare to the situation described by MM:

 

5 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Then I got a message from the CO saying something like 'crikey you've looked at the page more times than I have'.

 

As a puzzle setter I’d love to know who’s ‘having a go’ at my puzzle; but as a solver, I prefer to play my cards close to my chest.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Is it really ‘bizarre’ not wanting your online activity monitored?

 

It matters only when you know about it. Did you know that just now, while you are reading this comment, your acts are monitored.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It matters only when you know about it. Did you know that just now, while you are reading this comment, your acts are monitored.

 

Of course.  It doesn’t mean I like it. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

I agree with you.   May not exactly be a privacy issue, but as in your example it does seem a bit stalkerish.  I think this does relate mostly to puzzles - I can’t think of other reasons for many repeat visits to a cache page.  I hate the thought that my attempts are being monitored.  If I see a PMO puzzle, I will do my absolute best to keep my visits to a minimum.

 

But you have a link on your profile which invites everyone and anyone to visit your family website which appears to have a wealth of personal information available to all and sundry.  I'd suggest numbers of visits to a PMO  cache page pale into insignificance beside that ...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

But you have a link on your profile which invites everyone and anyone to visit your family website which appears to have a wealth of personal information available to all and sundry.  I'd suggest numbers of visits to a PMO  cache page pale into insignificance beside that ...

 

A fair point, but I’ve chosen to share that information.  If possible, I choose not to share just how hard I’m trying to crack a puzzle cache!

Edited by IceColdUK
Typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Bizarre.

 

Is it really ‘bizarre’ not wanting your online activity monitored?

 

Given the context I'd say yes.

 

How many of us are walking around with a cellphone in our pockets that not only monitors our Internet activity to the nth degree but also records where we were while we were accessing that data?

 

How many of us have our whereabouts recorded on CCTV umpteen times a day?

 

How many of us have our driving patterns recorded byANPR cameras every time we enter or leave a major town or city?

 

How many of us have our TV viewing habits recorded in detail?

 

How many of us put stuff on social media that, in times past, had we written them in a diary and somebody snooped on it, we'd have been annoyed?

 

How many of us have free email accounts that disclose a sea of personal facts about us? Use a search engine that does the same and personalises search results for every single user?

 

Worrying about a CO seeing how many times I've looked at their cache and when the first time and last time were against all of that seems rather pointless. An insignificant drop in an ocean of personal data that we are leaking pretty much constantly.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Then I got a message from the CO saying something like 'crikey you've looked at the page more times than I have'.

 

I used the audit list to help cachers. I'd never pronounce the high-number view winner. That is kind of creepy, but it's more like everything else in Geocaching, a cutthroat competition for the highest numbers.

 

I have a couple of PMO caches. One (now archived) I would sometimes check to see if there was any interest, any recent “views”. Hard to tell, since the statistic only applies to web site views. So I might go set it up perfect in case someone's coming. If nobody's “viewing” ever, that figures into my decision on which caches I'd archive.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Given the context I'd say yes.

 

The context of my comments is attempting to solve local puzzle caches.  I know most of the COs, and I’m good friends with many.  I’d rather not give them the satisfaction of seeing me waste a whole evening trying to solve their puzzles!

 

That’s it.  I did say in my first post “not exactly a privacy issue”.  I just don’t like the PMO audit log. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

The context of my comments is attempting to solve local puzzle caches.  I know most of the COs, and I’m good friends with many.  I’d rather not give them the satisfaction of seeing me waste a whole evening trying to solve their puzzles!

 

If you are not visiting their cache pages they will be disappointed. Are you trying to cover the truth that you are not interested about their puzzles at all?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

The context of my comments is attempting to solve local puzzle caches.  I know most of the COs, and I’m good friends with many.  I’d rather not give them the satisfaction of seeing me waste a whole evening trying to solve their puzzles!

 

That’s it.  I did say in my first post “not exactly a privacy issue”.  I just don’t like the PMO audit log. :-)

 

Copy the major info, including photos, whatever into a publisher file, and you review it without adding to the audit log. :bad:

 

I revisit some very tough puzzles because the COs tend to add extra hints if it's not being solved. Then they retract the hints that seem to them too much of a giveaway. I get a lot of interesting clues that way.

 

Yeah, I don't necessarily wish to tip the CO that I'm close to solving it. But most every Internet bit you move is permanently logged someplace. I didn't know this surprises everyone else. Get the word out.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting discussion regarding the audit log on PMO caches.  Kind of wondering how HQ will reconcile the feature with GDPR, in which the bar for Personal Data is set extremely low:

 

" In practice, these also include all data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. "

 

We've seen threads unceremoniously *poofed* out of existence on the Forum.  Seems like the Audit Log is in real jeopardy if something like a Forum thread was considered linking a Username and comments they made to a GDPR concern.

 

What do others think?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

What do others think?

 

The idea of using pseudonyms for usernames and hiding everything real information about the user is meant to solve these problems. Problems begins when someone interprets that a pseudonym is personal information even it is meant to be the opposite.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

If you are not visiting their cache pages they will be disappointed. Are you trying to cover the truth that you are not interested about their puzzles at all?

 

The ones I care about will know I’m interested, but I’d rather they didn’t know just how interested.

 

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Interesting discussion regarding the audit log on PMO caches.  Kind of wondering how HQ will reconcile the feature with GDPR, in which the bar for Personal Data is set extremely low:

 

" In practice, these also include all data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. "

 

We've seen threads unceremoniously *poofed* out of existence on the Forum.  Seems like the Audit Log is in real jeopardy if something like a Forum thread was considered linking a Username and comments they made to a GDPR concern.

What do others think?

 

Well, since you asked...     :)

As one who experienced far worse than IceColdUK, with  unduly curious/prying/confrontational COs, I was thinking along the same lines.

 - "Finally ! This intrusive function (that something as simple as using a phone or bookmark bypasses anyway...) will finally go bye-bye". 

But it hasn't. 

So I'll continue to pass by pmo hides.  

 - A shame, 'cause most higher-terrain hides in my area are pmo, and are the kind of caches I'll drive a good distance for. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I don't mind if a CO sees that I'm taking a crack at their puzzle, but at the same time, I can understand why some people would rather their puzzle-solving exploits go unmonitored by the creator. I can see how you might debate someone about their opinion on this issue, but at the end of the day, it's their account and this feature is making them uncomfortable. I don't see the reason for the feature personally (at least not in its current form). If someone wants help, they'll ask for it. I certainly don't want to be contacted by the CO based on my online activity. If the CO is just looking to see how many people are taking a crack at their puzzle, the same could likely be accomplished by listing the number of unique users to have visited the page and the number each has visited. That way, the CO knows that people are working on the puzzle, they can make an educated guess about how much difficulty the users are having, and the solvers don't have to experience the embarrassment of being monitored while they spend day after day on the puzzle. 

 

It might be nice at least to have the ability to toggle this on and off. To choose to be viewed by your individual name or as just another unique user. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be clear...   I like the idea of a "members only" (pmo) cache. 

Maybe if all were of better quality than we've seen so far, it'd mean something more....

It's just the audit I could do without.

 - A function that gets more folks in trouble (we get the mails from others, after posting similar in these forums...) than it's really worth.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

We've seen threads unceremoniously *poofed* out of existence on the Forum.  Seems like the Audit Log is in real jeopardy if something like a Forum thread was considered linking a Username and comments they made to a GDPR concern.

 

What do others think?

 

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

 

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

 

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

I remember replying to threads, that were gone when I returned to the Forum on a later day. There was a short discussion about that happening to others as well.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

 

I've seen three so far.  Know for a fact others have too (one said they thought it was in their head  :D) .

One was by a poster who still posts occasionally since. 

Who'd answer a question, when you know the poster will just zap everything if they don't like the answer ?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, K13 said:

I remember replying to threads, that were gone when I returned to the Forum on a later day. There was a short discussion about that happening to others as well.

 

Can't remember anything specific.

 

Although there have been a number of times where I've felt this has been forgotten or just ignored - my bold:

 

Quote

Discussion forums are moderated to preserve the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending participants. Please understand that we are not attempting to censor any messages or opinions.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The one's I've noticed were vaporized when the OP deleted his first post.

 

Was surprised that some didn't know that we can delete our posts now too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

 

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

I know of several entire forum threads deleted when the OP chose to do so.  After the GDPR. The geocacher  poofed the thread, which subsequently deleted all  posts by everyone who responded.

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post

Because  of the issues with the search function on the Waymarking site, I often use a geocache to look at "nearest waymarks".  I don't even look to see if the cache is PMO. If it's a puzzle, the poor CO may think I'm working on the puzzle. I may show up on a lot of audit logs for a reason that the CO did not anticipate.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, arisoft said:

a rewiewer told me that also your geocaching nickname is a personal data and HQ confirmed that I am not allowed to use other players nicknames on cache page without their consent. It is possible that PQ contains personal data.

Uh oh. I may be in trouble.  Barefootjeff: I apologize. My intents were good.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×