> I am not putting the blame on Prismatic, but on this crazy system that allows machines to post on my behalf.
I would put blame on Prismatic for sure.
It makes sense for Twitter to offer an API for me to authorize a third party application to access my Twitter account to post. This is how we have various twitter applications that post on our behalf. But we are in control of it. Popular Twitter apps on the iPhone for example are used for posting and managing accounts and are in control of the user. Because this API has a useful, valid and ethical use, the blame can not be on Twitter for offering a sensible functionality that benefits users.
What this article describes though is an unethical practice of misusing Twitter's API, and abusing Twitter's auxilliary function as an identity platform, in order to hijack random users' accounts and impersonate them for the purposes of pushing unwanted advertisements towards fourth parties (their friends and subscribers) under false pretenses.
The practice is clearly wrong, clearly fraudulent, and should be illegal, under legal principles banning impersonation for fraudulent purposes. It is a serious crime that should be punished not just with fines but with prison time, as identity theft normally is. The fraudulent purpose of this practice is inherent in posting on one's behalf without the person wanting or intending that, regardless of whether the hapless and naive users were tricked with a confusing and opaque 20 page long dubiously valid click-through legal contract.
Whether it is illegal or not, it is unethical. Companies that indulge in such fraudulent practices, regardless of the desirability of their products, should be permanently shunned in order to punish unethical practices when there exists a castrated corporate controlled legislature and judiciary that is unable to properly regulate companies engaging in fraud.
I would put blame on Prismatic for sure.
It makes sense for Twitter to offer an API for me to authorize a third party application to access my Twitter account to post. This is how we have various twitter applications that post on our behalf. But we are in control of it. Popular Twitter apps on the iPhone for example are used for posting and managing accounts and are in control of the user. Because this API has a useful, valid and ethical use, the blame can not be on Twitter for offering a sensible functionality that benefits users.
What this article describes though is an unethical practice of misusing Twitter's API, and abusing Twitter's auxilliary function as an identity platform, in order to hijack random users' accounts and impersonate them for the purposes of pushing unwanted advertisements towards fourth parties (their friends and subscribers) under false pretenses.
The practice is clearly wrong, clearly fraudulent, and should be illegal, under legal principles banning impersonation for fraudulent purposes. It is a serious crime that should be punished not just with fines but with prison time, as identity theft normally is. The fraudulent purpose of this practice is inherent in posting on one's behalf without the person wanting or intending that, regardless of whether the hapless and naive users were tricked with a confusing and opaque 20 page long dubiously valid click-through legal contract.
Whether it is illegal or not, it is unethical. Companies that indulge in such fraudulent practices, regardless of the desirability of their products, should be permanently shunned in order to punish unethical practices when there exists a castrated corporate controlled legislature and judiciary that is unable to properly regulate companies engaging in fraud.