Path gets a pass? Why?

In what way did Path "get a pass?" They got a lot of negative press, and it brought attention to this issue (hence blog posts like this one). Sure, people got vocally angry and then quickly forgot about it, but that's just what people do. It even happens with far worse things, like police brutality or even unwise invasions of countries.<p>What specifically do you want to happen? You say you want "Silicon Valley" to "publicly and vocally [condemn] this type of activity," but what would that actually mean? Last I checked, "Silicon Valley" doesn't exist as some unified entity that can issue public statements. Heck, Hacker News is some approximation of the culture of Silicon Valley, and the front page was filled with rage.<p>Also, incidentally, I find it interesting that you cite a dictionary definition for a word that in no way corroborates your usage of the word, even though I think I agree with your underlying point. Path didn't "take and carry away" anything, and the contacts on your phone hardly constitute "personal goods or property."

Path's error was not the uploading of your address book, but rather making it not be a user choice. The data was used directly in the functionality of the product. The level of actual usefulness this would be to the user is debatable but it isn't a direct utilization of your data for benefit, the benefit to Path is an indirect one (but then, everything any company does is primarily for their benefit, just indirectly through providing utility to the customers).<p>If Path was taking your address book and selling it to spammers, and forgot to make that opt-in or out (as many services do), then after being confronted with this apologized and made that optional. That would NOT BE OK. That's what Facebook and Google would have likely done (since that's basically their business model), and likely why you have the impression that they wouldn't be let off the hook as easily.<p>What Path was actually doing with the address book is crucial here to whether the apology and quick response to amend their ways (FB and G tend to seriously drag their feet on responses) should result in forgiveness and caution towards them in the future, or the harsher response you advocate.<p>Do not misconstrue this as Path apologism, because I do think what Path did was very wrong--hence the requirement for them to apologize in a way that I thought was sincere and comprehending of the source of the outrage (many similar apologies are tone deaf and come off like "I am sorry you are having a problem" vs. "I'm sorry we caused a problem")--I just think they haven't made a deep ethical mistake, but rather an unfortunate oversight well deserving of castigation that they've begun to atone for.

This is sensationalist crap.

They spent some social capital, but they're still in the black.

I wonder what are their usage statistics...<p>If its in the low numbers, probably not enough people use it to cause a mob riot.<p>I personally don't use it at all.

Maybe because it has earned it?

Path is dead in the water and nobody cares. Those who expressed sympathy over their handling of the nerd pressure were doing so more to signal for future times that the correct action was taken by Path's management. It means something to the industry that not everyone is a Curebit or similar, even though what they did was a premeditated act of douchebaggery.<p>Which brings me to another topic: it's hard out there to be successful and always do the right thing. Sometimes you'll have to cut corners in the attempt to gain an edge, however meaningless an inconsequential to the big picture it may seem at the time, because big strong companies are built on a stream of small, repetitive successes, not big wins.

If Path has violated the UK's Data Protection Act like some stories have mentioned, people from the company should go to jail.