Opted out users....

[+lee737]

Here is a great example that makes me wonder about the usefulness of this 'feature'..... the information in the hidden posts was about the (large) rock the cache was hidden under being now unstable, and as you were sitting between it and a very high cliff (probably 200'/60m) about 2m/6' away, that care should be taken lest the rock nudge you over the edge should it become free....

If you must (I really don't get it though), hide the users (anonymous?) name, but why censor out the info? This info may actually be important..... And of course it wasn't unobtainable in any case, as the user's name and info was quite easily gathered from the official app.....

 

[+ChriBli]

10 hours ago, lee737 said:

If you must (I really don't get it though), hide the users (anonymous?) name, but why censor out the info? This info may actually be important..... And of course it wasn't unobtainable in any case, as the user's name and info was quite easily gathered from the official app.....

As you say, the info was available in the official app and in a browser. The right to opt out ouf sharing data with third-party apps is apparently a legal requirement, not much GS can do about that.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, ChriBli said:

As you say, the info was available in the official app and in a browser. The right to opt out ouf sharing data with third-party apps is apparently a legal requirement, not much GS can do about that.

 

Perhaps the opt-out page needs to be better worded...

 

 

To me, sharing "personal information" is things like real name, phone number, street address, email address, etc., the sort of stuff third parties would use to solicit business. Do most people ticking this box even realise it will block their caching logs from being seen on third party apps?

 

I'm also curious that the second checkbox, which allows third parties to share stuff with your friends, refers to the stuff being shared as "geocaching activity", not "personal information". Why the difference in terminology?

[+lee737]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To me, sharing "personal information" is things like real name, phone number, street address, email address, etc., the sort of stuff third parties would use to solicit business. Do most people ticking this box even realise it will block their caching logs from being seen on third party apps?

I would doubt it.... maybe they need to allow people to just block their profile info rather than their logs... as I mentioned, it is only a 'Claytons' block anyway, as the official app is mercifully excluded from the veil of secrecy.

[+A J Pombo]

On 9/22/2022 at 12:39 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

Perhaps the opt-out page needs to be better worded...

 

 

 

 

Yes, i agree. Something like this:

- Share/not share my logs with Auth. Dev. App's

- Share/not share my souvenirs with Auth. Dev. App's

- Share/not share my #founds (including LAB Caches) with Auth. Dev. App's

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I think this is more the case of Groundspeak allowing a user to control whether or not a person wants their information shared with third parties. Doesn't matter what kind of information. That would explain why the Groundspeak app has access, and others are blocked.

 

As for why, maybe there are laws in some countries that require Groundspeak to implement such an opt-out mechanism.

[+MartyBartfast]

33 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

As for why, maybe there are laws in some countries that require Groundspeak to implement such an opt-out mechanism.

I know Groundspeak are between a rock and a hard place on this and they don't have any option but to offer an opt-out, but I've always thought it would be ideal if anyone who chooses to opt out is then prevented from seeing that same information from ALL users, and I suspect that might make some re-think their decision.

I know this will never happen and probably isn't technically possible, but it it would be Karma

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

... I've always thought it would be ideal if anyone who chooses to opt out is then prevented from seeing that same information from ALL users, and I suspect that might make some re-think their decision.
I know this will never happen and probably isn't technically possible, but it it would be Karma

 

Yep.  There's a forum I go once in a while, and I block a lot of posters. 

 - Some odd reason, they can view everything said and downvote the people who've blocked them.

I think the oddest we've seen so far here is one who came here asking for help, but had all his stuff hidden from view...  

[Keystone]

56 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

... maybe there are laws in some countries that require Groundspeak to implement such an opt-out mechanism.

 

That's not a "maybe."  See Groundspeak's privacy policy and related Help Center section on Account issues  and the Help Center section on Privacy Rights for more details.

 

Thank you for your accurate explanation of the distinction between the official apps and authorized third party API partner apps.

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

... maybe there are laws in some countries that require Groundspeak to implement such an opt-out mechanism.

That's not a "maybe."  See Groundspeak's privacy policy and related Help Center section on Account issues  and the Help Center section on Privacy Rights for more details.

Of course, the fact that it's a legal requirement doesn't make the end result any less absurd.