At least I didn't publicize it after and removed it when I was done
Laws you may not like are still there to be enforced.
Zuck?
He then created TheFacebook as an alternative to Harvard's online facebook, which was purportedly in development. The official facebook was taking longer because of worries about scraping of user information [1]:
> Davis said that the principle complication with the creation of an official facebook was figuring out how to design an interface so that directory information could not easily be compiled without authorization.
That said, Zuckerberg's TheFacebook got around that because students apparently were happy to upload their information to his service. And the rest is history.
[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/4/hot-or-not-websi...
[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register...
The rules governing consent and data of human subjects are even more stringent in academia, hence the existence of institutional review boards.
[0] http://adland.tv/content/virgin-uses-cc-licenced-flickr-phot...
In contrast, I know that in the EU, architects have copyright on their work, which means you can't photograph the Eiffel Tower at night and share the photo, legally, without consent [2]
As to how you know if your photo is being used commercially...obviously there isn't a push-notification service (yet) that sends an alert to your inbox. You would just have to notice the commercial usage, as what happened when the teenager who was captured in a CC-licensed photo on Flickr found herself in a Virgin Mobile campaign
[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-begins-blurring-faces-in-st... (warning, autoplay video)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-07-15/how-sacha-baron-cohen-ke...
[2] http://www.politico.eu/article/banned-taking-pictures-of-the...
The issue in that case was (IANAL) nothing to do with the CC licensing but with the fact that the photo was used for a commercial (i.e. marketing/advertising) purpose. Those require a model release form, hence the requirement by microstock sites for model releases.
Virgin Mobile messed up in that they used a photo for a marketing campaign that didn't have a model release form either directly or through an agency that had vetted it.
Editorial use in the US at least doesn't require this even though it's commercial use in the sense that a for-profit entity is using the photo to illustrate a story.
[0] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/chang-v-virgin-mobile-creat...
[1] https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/more-commercial-creative-common... (Video autoplay, grr.)
It is not the possibility that I might appear in an ad that concerns me, but rather, that the set of photos that contain me in them, could be used correlate way more information than I would ever consent to releasing voluntarily. I would not even notice that happening.
Courts would consider it an overreach, and that specific clause would be nullified.
You can't take everything from another party while offering no compensation and expect a court to uphold it.
EDIT: Disclaimer: Not a lawyer. Not your lawyer.
> It’s also worth noting that in agreeing to the company’s T&Cs Tinder users grant it a “worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, right and license to host, store, use, copy, display, reproduce, adapt, edit, publish, modify and distribute” their content — though it’s less clear whether that would apply in this case where a third-party developer is scraping Tinder data and releasing it under a public domain license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
https://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_as...
"The idea of consideration is vital to contract law because, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be “mutuality of obligation.” In other words, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties to the contract must be required to perform under the contract. Consideration, which represents the commitment that the parties to the contract make to each other, is at the heart of the “mutuality of obligation” rule and, therefore, without consideration, a contract will not be enforceable."
Identity is a liability, and a favor that we offer to our peers in order to simplify communication. It does not benefit the person being identified, so much. If I cannot have the identities of the people and projects who consume my data, then I will operate as a fresh, expendable identity.
Not to mention there are several million face dataset available easily. http://megaface.cs.washington.edu
Also there is really no point in attacking him, other than for typical clickbait outrage.
Finally how is this worse than those name and shame Tinder/OKCupid/Jezebel blog posts, or the horrible actions of the Wikileaks/Intercept crooks.
Since so few details about terms of use on the dataset are available, it's reasonable to assume the access control is put up in place for reasons other than bandwidth concerns.
This guy sounds like a caricature of the exact kind of socially unaware techie who blithely implements dystopian-powering software, because having data and writing code is all that matters apparently. Privacy law admittedly isn't the simplest concept but you have to wonder how blissfully solipsistic someone has to be to write a simple script that scrapes proprietary data without asking himself, "this is so easy, I wonder why no one else has had this idea?"
And then he released the data under CC0, just to add insult to injury by making CC look unethical.