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).
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.
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.
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.
Path may have not sold your personal data to third party advertisers to target you with, but Path wanted and used your address book for the same reason those third party advertisers would have wanted it: to promote their own product to you and your friends.
Comments
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).
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.
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.
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.
Path may have not sold your personal data to third party advertisers to target you with, but Path wanted and used your address book for the same reason those third party advertisers would have wanted it: to promote their own product to you and your friends.