Is my name on it?

Yes?

Then it's personal information, and those "real users" can go screw.

A phrase that I read here a while ago has stuck with me: "There's no way for you to opt-out of people talking about you on the Internet".

Klout is just a (lame) algorithm talking about you on the Internet.

There is a way to opt-out of people aggregating and making available informstion about you. Especially in Europe.

I don't know if the European privacy laws would apply to freely offered public information such as the stuff a person has on their public twitter profile. I always assumed it was for things like personally identifiable data that you gather through other means (e.g. a user signs up on your site directly).

The idea of people having an expectation of privacy in a broadcast medium feels preposterous to me.

Hardly. If you publish a book and someone publishes figures on how many books have been sold, or how many people have mentioned your book in reviews - that's not personal information. I don't see Klout as being any different. (mind you I agree that Klout metrics are completely meaningless - but that's a separate point)

If you don't want people talking about you on the internet, don't get on the internet and do things that are publicly connected to your name.

This isn't specific to the internet. This is how the meat world works.

Klout is not "people." Klout is an incredibly obnoxious service that scrapes Twitter for information. (Topsy is another one.) People who want to be validated by their terrible little company may choose to do so. I do not, and any halfway reputable company would honor the request to be removed from their listings.

The bigger problem, of course, is that they assert that I "[am] on Klout," when I damned well am not. A page that they have scraped from services that actually provide meaningful value has information about me on it, but I am not "on" their site in any meaningful way. They co-opt my online presence (not that it's worth much) to attempt to drive my acquaintances to use their service, when their service isn't even one I use.

But, y'know. Ignoring the people whose data you're scraping and lying about their use of your service is just real ingenious hustling, or...something. I've lost track of the various ways people excuse terrible behavior like this from trendy companies.

Be that as it may, there's only one person responsible for the fact that your information is being used in this way: you.

If you left all your possessions in the middle of the nearest town, would it surprise you if they were stolen? Of course we want to live in a world where that doesn't happen but the reality is that we don't. If you don't want people to abuse your personal information, don't make your personal information public.

That ranks highly among the more perverse cases of refusal to blame the people actually doing wrong that I've ever seen. How about some blame for the douchebags actually doing something wrong? It bears no resemblance whatsoever to "don't leave your things unattended"; in this profession it is essentially impossible not to have an online presence of some significance and that does not mean that some two-bit rectum of a startup has the right to claim that I am "on" their little website (clearly and dishonestly intimating that I am using it).

You are not entitled to use my information to push your service unless I agree to allow you to do so (for example, by virtue of using your service). This just isn't that complex.

If your information were private, then yes there would be an invasion of privacy here. However, the information is not private because you've deliberately made it public. By definition you can't complain about an invasion of your privacy when you've surrendered it.

This is not to say that I'm a fan of Klout - quite the contrary - but to give away information and then expect to be able to control how it's used is, sadly, unrealistic. As I said, we may wish there weren't such people in the world, but there are, and we have to take responsibility for looking after our own interests rather than hoping some faceless third party will do it for us.

But my understand here is that this is being allowed via Twitter. Twitter is knowingly allowing this to take place, and by agreeing to Twitter's ToS, you are in effect, allowing this to happen. Essentially, what I see this as, is you not agreeing to Twitter freely sharing your information the way it does. So maybe instead of being angry with Klout, who has permission from Twitter to do this, you should be angry with Twitter, and revoke your permission in using your information?

Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine. If they had a shred of decency they'd remove users who ask them to, and they clearly don't, but whatever. The bigger problem, and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter exposing this information, is the morally bankrupt turds at Klout asserting that I am using their service when I am not. They have plausible deniability, in the sense that "on" can refer to their harebrained 'analysis' of my timeline, but it's obvious that that's not their intended meaning.

EDIT: There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too:

C. Your Service should not:

...

impersonate or facilitate impersonation of others in a manner that can mislead, confuse, or deceive users.

I'm pretty sure that "look, this person you know is 'on' Klout!" when I have and desire no relationship with their service would fall under this category (or would if Twitter actually enforced such rules, which it doesn't appear they do). "But we just say 'on' to mean 'we have some stuff about them!'" is unacceptable. Doubly so when they won't stop when asked. But user abuse seems to be endemic to the "social" industry, so while I'm kind of pissed, I'm not surprised.

First, don't confuse me with someone defending Klout. I'm not.

> Twitter gives them access to my public timeline. That's fine.

> There's an argument that Klout is possibly violating Twitter's Terms of Service, too

See, if Twitter gives them permission to do something, and they do it, then they have permission to do it. It's sleazy in how they do it, but, as you say: whatever.

Here is the unfortunate thing. Twitter is allowing them to do this. Klout has permission. And, by using Twitter, you are in a sense giving Klout permission as well, through that nefarious ToS.

You want to use Twitter? A part of using Twitter is allowing them to provide your information to Klout. There is nothing to say you have to use Twitter. There are other options out there.

A lot of this seems to be entitlement-driven. You want something for free, but you dislike the terms. You are allowed to disagree with those terms, but don't misplace the blame here.

You gave Twitter certain permissions. Twitter then uses those permissions and does with it what it will, which results in allow Klout to do what it will (and don't for a minute think that Twitter's public ToS is the only ToS). You've given your permission. It strikes me as wrong to attack Klout, who has Twitter's permission, and by extension, yours.

Complain if you will, but understand that Twitter is at the centre of this. If you complain about Klout and leave Twitter blameless, you're being dishonest.

If you can't agree to the ToS, don't use the service.

Again, this is crazy-talk. Twitter themselves says that Klout can't misrepresent that I am "on" their service. But they are.

And, no, sorry, there are no other alternatives to Twitter. Literally zero. I mean, really--identi.ca? Don't make me laugh.

Is your name on it? I thought it only pulled info from your twitter page, unless your Facebook friends gave it access to their friends list. In which case it's information from their users and not really information they harvested from you.

Berlusconi thinks the same thing.