Matt Kettler wrote: > >http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/2004/03/23/why-do-really-smart-people-hate-plaxo-so-much-or-tim-koogle/ >http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/2004/03/24/plaxo-not-evil/ > > >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14545 > > >Based on the above it looks like a "social network for morons" service. > >It doesn't seem to have many privacy problems in and of itself, except for when >someone you know gives them your email you get bombarded with update requests. > >The problem being that anyone who knows your email address can do this, then >harvest any information you willingly submit and share back. For example, a >spam >marketer could submit your address in the hopes you'll blindly share-back and >add the information you provide to his/her database. > >Fortunately, this involves YOU willingly submitting the extra information. So, >unless you stupidly give out a ton of information, it's annoying but mostly >harmless (nod to D. Adams). > >If you find it too annoying they have a permanent opt-out list which is linked >in the update notices. Since this doesn't involve giving them anything but your >email address, which they already have, the risks are low. Yes, you're >confirming the address is valid to them, but Plaxo itself seems legit and >relatively privacy concerned and aware. Its users on the other hand may not be. > >http://www.plaxo.com/privacy/policy/ > >
Would it be worth adding a rule that has a low value that people can then increment as they see fit (like setting the score to 6.0)? -Philip
