191–200 of 261 posts
This is surely a breach of GDRP. One of the principles is that data must only be used for the purpose for which it was collected. Taking a number provided explicitly for 2FA and using it for search certainly sounds like a breach.
They might get around this by not doing it with numbers provided after the GDPR penalties came into effect.
Facebook, and Facebook uniquely (although Google too), must be regulated by world governments, and citizens must be protected from it through GDPR like rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The three body problem book part 2 also explores a fully transparent society; It's really interesting with all the sides effects (They can't lie, etc.). I recommend anyone to read it !
I read the first and while the ideas explored were interesting, I found the writing itself to be completely off-putting: - first of all, Three Body seems like the most boring videogame ever developed, not sure how people could actually be believably playing that. - the characters are pretty much caricatures of stereotypes (the cop), or just plain uninteresting. - the massive exposure/infodump chapters killed the imme…
They own WhatsApp, which is integral to having a social life in Germany. So they already have my phone number.
You don't need WhatsApp to have a social life anywhere, even in Germany. There's something seriously wrong with society if an app owned by a malicious tech company is considered fundamental to the human experience.
Who in their right mind would give Facebook their phone number in the first place? Seriously…did people not expect Facebook to sell it to anyone with two pennies to rub together?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
see also: Any employee in the education sector would have good reason.
I wonder how long it takes until the whole teaching profession just collectively decides to adopt professional pseudonyms. Would make "child at same school"-situations even more awkward I guess.
That being said I did once call my male first grade teacher "mom" so maybe I'm not a good example
It seems as though if a group of people all had the same app installed on our phones--like Signal, or something similar--we could bypass the phone number system, and set up our own audio-chat sessions over the data connection. If anyone else wanted to talk, they would also need to have the same app, or use its API, and add my contact information. That would add quite a bit of friction to person-to-person communication, but I kind of want that now, as it would also add equal friction to robot-to-person communications. But it isn't exactly easy to get a mobile data network connection without also buying in to the phone network addressing system.
Everywhere I look, in the realm of security breaches and vulnerabilities, a large number of exploits use the public switched telephone network, or its addresses, to compromise the security of the people forced to use them by network effects. Many of the others exploit email addresses on the large providers--apple.com, gmail.com, yahoo.com, hotmail.com--which are popular due to ease of use, and the difficulty involved in getting mail delivered from a private domain to someone using addresses from those providers.
I get the impression that if I set up a phone to ring on a SIP request to 'myhomephone@mydomain.example.com' instead of something like '2125551212@voipprovider.example.com', it would never get robo-dialed calls. But it would also never get calls from people I might want to speak with, because their phones can only call phone numbers. What's the way out of this trap? How do we stop jackasses from jumping into the middle of any private communications we might wish to have, in a way that is also easy enough to use that nontechnical relative can use a prepackaged setup for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hypercult of Transparency[nice choice of words!] exists because people keep falling for the Transparency=Accountability meme. And until the rather recent advent of homeomorphic encryption, that meme did have some rather humongous amounts of truth to it. However, given the existence of homeomorphic encryption, this no longer rings true. Speaking of homeomorphic encryption and Facebook: https://news.ycombinator.com…
Whats the connection between discussions about "the cult of transparency" and homeomorphic encryption?