-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Adobe can sell youir pix?
- Thread starter Chuck2
- Start date
Eric Fossum
Veteran Member
A clarification on Adobe Terms of Use | Adobe Blog
What the recent updates to our Terms of Use mean for you.
blog.adobe.com
I found this with a second's worth of work. Anyway, wrong forum for copying and pasting incendiary stuff found on the web.
Eric Fossum
Veteran Member
If you use MS Word to write documents, and spell check finds something to consider editing, do you freak out because MS is apparently spying on your private document?
Anyway, the beauty here is that they have warned you, and all you have to do is not use their product to be sure that Adobe is not spying on you.
If you really want to freak out, be worried about your doorbell video and where that data goes, or where all the data your car collects on your driving habits winds up. And ever wonder where Google Maps gets the traffic info so it can tell how long it will take to get to your destination?
From Adobe's blog:
Adobe may use technologies and other processes, including escalation for manual (human) review, to screen for certain types of illegal content (such as child sexual abuse material), or other abusive content or behavior (for example, patterns of activity that indicate spam or phishing).
Analyzing users photos stored on their servers for these purposes seems a bit more intrusive than MS Word correcting spelling mistakes, unless of course Word is analyzing sentences for illegal activity and reporting them to the authorities.
Eric Fossum
Veteran Member
More intrusive than spell check, true, but are you condoning child pornography, including sexploitation and trafficking, which is the #1 thing most of these photosites scan for? I don't think you are. SPAM and phishing is a lesser issue in my mind, but Adobe has the right control how their services are used. Same with Facebook, Flickr, Google photos, etc.
See: https://www.technologycoalition.org/
I condone the 4th Amendment. I don't condone corporations acting on behalf of the state to violate it, as I'm not a fan of corporatocracies.
Eric Fossum
Veteran Member
Well, there you have it. Unlimited, uncontrolled child pornography to be allowed under the banner of the 4th amendment according to Horshack.
Yet, this is why the terms of service are what they are. If you rent a storage unit and the terms of service say the storage unit can be inspected from time to time by the property owner's dog to be sure illegal materials (say, bomb-making materials or narcotics) are not being stored there, you have a choice. Go somewhere else, or consent to search. This search is not a 4th amendment issue in this case.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You might want to read up on current case law. The 4th amendment does apply to private entities when their actions can reasonably be construed to represent government action when laws exist that explicitly allow or encourage those actions.
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
Looks like a lousy deal - that they would require you to so spinelessly forfeit copy rights to content posted in their sandbox. What do you get for that ? A cyber-lollipop ? Thankfully not the case where it comes to DPR user-posted content (such as original JPG images, at least). However, pixel resolution equates to (robotic, and other) lift-ability, as well as to view-ability. Chasing royalty fees never appealed to my photo. druthers/tastes. Can't give 'em away. 
Last edited:
Quite a stir over there.
Post-processing & Printing - Photography - FM Forums
Explore Post-processing & Printing photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.
www.fredmiranda.com
robert1955
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,149
- Solutions
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4,959
definely not here. I would suggest Open talk. If you go there, you also might add a source. Good luck
1. If the governments (US or any other "country" from the Five Eyes project) were indeed against child pornography, they would have caught and imprisoned all those Jeffry Epstein's clients a long time ago. But since none of those received an earlier morning FBI raid.... I am guessing the reality is a bit different compared to how you think of it.
The only real reason for child-pornography to becoming of a concern is that it is being used as a trojan horse to eventually require everyone accessing internet to ID themselves.
This is needed so that the spread of damaging to the kid-diddling-group information can be stopped BEFORE the masses wake up.
This is also why all these big-tech companies began to assign rights to their customers' data to themselves via "updating Terms and Conditions" quietly.
Even if the Constitution doesn't allow illegal search, this doesn't apply to private companies willingly allowing feds to access ALL of your data without a warrant after you signed your rights away via ToS. This is NOT illegal, since the company now owns the data and simply decided to share it with those who wanted to spy on your.
I realize it is a spicy take, but sadly no "normie" take can explain all the contradictions of "lets ignore J Epstein pedo clients " while pushing for "let's fight the child porn TOGETHER, yay". It cannot be both at the same time.
I wish it was different, but based on these facts, we don't have that "different" reality here.
Last edited:
Eric Fossum
Veteran Member
Well, it is amazing what some people believe - that this is the only real reason. As if there aren't actual strong moral reasons to be concerned and active about shutting down child pornography and exploitation. With digital images so easily shared, the exploitation of children has mushroomed. This is NOT ok.
I am also amazed at the silence of others in this forum on this topic.
Nearly all crime could either be prevented or at least more easily prosecuted if we repealed the protections afford by the constitution. Some think that would NOT be ok.
Perhaps they're worried they'll be labeled supporters of child pornography if they disagree with you.
Last edited:
petty crime will be stopped, yes, and be 100% replaced by a tyranny, kind of like what USSR had where they killed off millions, and starved tens of millions and it wont even be a crime. But talking about it certainly would be a crime punished with a capital punishment.
"Some think that would NOT be ok"
Those who do that, are reasonable people seeing far.
Hal Wilson
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 1,293
It's interesting how any resistance to government and corporate spying on private individuals is immediately met with 'ZOMG BUT CHILDPORNOGRAPHY!!111ONEONEONE', as though that is the only thing that those concerned with protecting freedom of thought is interested in. We had the same kind of faux moral indignation here in the UK, with the presentation of the planned Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (which ultimately failed to pass). The same red herring of 'oh but it's to protect the children'.
Governments spying on their populations is very disturbing. In the UK, we are currently seeing unfold an extremely dark and terrifying tale of how the police (at the government's
behest and with full blessing) used undercover agents to infiltrate many (mostly left wing) campaign groups, ostensibly to be prepared to counter 'terrorism', but really to crush dissent and to undermine democracy. Google Police Spies Scandal' and you should find something related. Given that governments here and elsewhere have historically been found to be somewhat less than trustworthy, then why would anyone who values freedom, equality and justice to actually approve of such snooping? UK democracy has suffered an enormous blow due to this (highly illegal as it turns out) activity, and may never recover.
I'm not sure if Adobe are so evil as to want to dob us all in to the thought police, but I agree that using our data/IP is something that should be viewed with great concern. Who knows; the owners of Adobe might want to support particular political parties/sides; should they therefore be allowed to enjoy unfettered access? Hmm.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum