Specific to US copyright law, there are exceptions for "public persons". Without these exceptions, it would severely restrict reporting on said persons. The most important part of that last sentence is elected officials. In any highly advanced democracy, you want to grant your media wide access to elected officials for reporting purposes.
>the simple sounding proposal has a lot of complexity hiding behind it.
Okay? We're not on a legal forum drafting the 50 page law to cover all those loopholes. I'm nor even sure if the posting limit here would faciliate that.
I trust some decent lawyers can take the high level suggestions and dig into the minutae when it comes to real policy. And I find it a bit annoying to berate the community because they aren't acting as a lawyer (and no one here claims to be one AFAIK).
>If I’m a photographer, do I have to get consent from both the divorced parents to photograph the kids? The kids themselves?
Check your state laws. The answer will vary immensely. Another reason a global forum like this isn't the best place to talk about law.
AFAIK that is not correct. They are issued by the government. Required by the government to be displayed on the car if you are driving on public roads. But the plate is not physically owned by the government. The biggest distinction seems to be that in some states it becomes part of the car, and in other states it stays with the driver when ownership of the car changes hands (or the owner of the car can choose either option when selling the car).
As an aside, these days I am guessing the latter is the truth in most states. So many specialty and personalized plate options out there that people are going to want to keep for themselves.
Obviously the government does own a small number of plates, of course, because they attach them to government owned vehicles.
Exactly, this would greatly reduce the ability for scammers in "urgent" situations, but for power users who flip the switch on day one it would rarely be a problem. What would be terrible though ... is if Google made it require a network connection or Google approval.
Under that logic, even if the app is "malicious" it would still be possible to install it. And thats not true, if somthing is deemed malicious, its blocked. Is app that hurts Google's dominance "malicious"? Who is it that decides what is malicious?
Please, both hackernews readers and the author take a closer look to see the cracks on the site. I'm fine with using AI generation, but it needs human review especially for legally binding stuff like the privacy policy.
1. Look at the concepts pie on the home page. The text in the pie is unreadable. Its overlapping and overflowing, white text clipping onto a white background with terms like "topic tagging" that are not an actual example. Its like no human looked at the image before putting it on the website. Maybe just a slip up, we all make mistakes, let's keep looking.
2. I didn't understand the data storage/privacy from the video, so let's look at the privacy policy. At one point the policy says "Do we receive any information from third parties?
No, we do not receive any information from third parties."
Right before later saying:
"journal entries or project-related text that you select are sent to the ChatGPT-5 thinking nano API operated by OpenAI."
Open AI *is a third party*! The answer is "Yes we send data to Open AI under these conditions". That's bad.
3. Lets look deeper. The privacy policy says they store 3 things with the first bullet point (in full) being "A unique user ID number that cannot be used to identify you." You're telling me a literal Identification (ID) Number can't identify me? Why does it exist? That is borderline nonsensical.
4. The video has similar vague stuff saying the data is processed locally after saying its going to chatGPT 5.
I'm giving harsh feedback because I want a project like this to exist, be done right, and succeed. I understand "ship fast and iterate". You're going too fast and you're not shipping an MVP, there is lots of feature creep.
Even when everything looks good, people should be hella skeptical about an app that wants to (potentially) harvest extremely personal daily journal logs. When every page smells like "I generated this and didn't fully check it" it makes me imagine how many hidden problems there are in the codebase.
- The kinda-rough AI video tells everyone "I don't have time to record a 5 min video of my own project". If you want me to believe you care, at least hire a narrator on fiver for $20 if you don't like speaking and/or showing your face. Why should I trust what you say you'll do with my most personal data when you don't even show yourself/show a human?
- There's only three important things: pricing, privacy, and the data analysis / coach. Leading with price is good/solved. What's missing is clarity about privacy. The hackernews post is much more clear, the website is not. I don't need more words, I need to know when the data is and is not shared and I need to be convinced you're responsible. Right now stuff like "Dlog’s private AI model" makes it confusing what's local and what's shipped to OpenAI.
- Even when explained clearly, privacy is going to be a problem. Let me use me use my own model/token/url. It's easy to point to a local URL that responds with data in the exact same format as GPT 5. That kind of feature is 10x more important than changing the color of the background.
- I'm not getting a coaching app because it has a good theme engine. Finish talking about coaching/analysis before going into themes and calndars etc. I don't even care how data is entered into the app, until after I know the useful things its doing. Give a real example of insight that changed your daily choices.
- I think you can do it, and I'm glad to see someone trying to meet this usecase.
Appreciate the detailed look. A few clarifications and immediate fixes:
• Concepts pie: noted. It’s a minor visualizer and not a current priority; there are dozens of other charts in the Dlog Lab tab. I’ll queue a fix, but I’m focusing elsewhere first.
• Privacy policy: you’re right—OpenAI is a third-party processor. I’m correcting the policy to say exactly when data is sent, what is sent, and under what controls (Enterprise API with no training/retention). I’ll also add a simple data-flow diagram.
• Local vs cloud: journals live on-device; the SEM runs locally. Scoring only happens when you explicitly choose to score—there’s no background upload. I’m adding a per-journal “Include in Coach analyses” toggle, and a simple “Remove names” anonymizer (ships in the next few days) so names are stripped before any scoring call.
• BYO endpoint: not on the near-term roadmap. I’m prioritizing clear privacy controls and product focus over supporting custom model URLs right now.
• Copy/video: I’ll tighten the site copy to lead with privacy and analysis, and make the local vs cloud boundary crisp.
Thanks for pushing on clarity—fixes are in motion.
