71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want congress to decide how much privacy you deserve? Yikes...
I know how much privacy I want, and I take the appropriate steps to get it, even if that means not using otherwise convenient services. The question is how much privacy people should get even if they don't care or think about it.
This I/O was all about On-Device ML. As ML chips get more powerful, a lot of these cool features that were only possible on the cloud will be moving to the device, lowering latency and working in poor network conditions. Google's use of Federated Learning is interesting too.
Way back when, I had two Android phones and really liked them. I switched to Apple phone, tablet, and watch because of privacy. The title is a little strange, almost like saying you don’t need those luxury Apple devices to get privacy, but that is wrong. For the mass market, I think Apple is the company that is least bad on privacy. I use some Google services like GSuite, Play Books, and Play Movies heavily but I cri…
We have no lasting friends, no lasting enemies, only lasting interests. - Someone.
I trust Apple not because of my optimism that they will do good, I trust them because of my pessimistic view ( Comparatively Speaking , it seems every negative thoughts in Silicon Valley are considered as pessimistic )that everyone has an interest, and it is Apple's interest to sell me expensive ( comparatively ) devices and Services while making a profits, and not selling product and services and zero net margin subsidiser by selling my Data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties. Trust in this sense is necessarily transitive. In a complex world with long supply chains, almost everything works that way - I don't get to choose every ingredient in a restaurant meal either. Either way, the point is that users do have control today and that they use this control to maximize convenience at…
> They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties. Even that incredibly low bar isn't cleared. When you visit a random web site you get tracked by google/facebook before you can be aware that this site is sending your information to them, clicking a link does not imply trust or consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean? Right now, people are in control and they choose to use software that is convenient for them, which happens to upload their data to the cloud. How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this? It's also unclear whether in practice people being in control over their devices better protects the users - back when that was the case, malware was…
> What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean? It means that Facebook et al don't have it to begin with. > How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this? Why do you have to force people to do anything? That conclusion requires some major cognitive dissonance. There are two options here. One is that people are rational in not caring, and in that case there is no problem and nothing…
Wrt: malware, what's definitely helped here is that people spend more time on centralized platforms that are able to tackle problems at the source, as opposed to visiting random unsafe websites and downloading random software. Likewise, telemetry in OS almost certainly helps greatly in fighting malware. Centralization in terms of both data and usage helps greatly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties. Even that incredibly low bar isn't cleared. When you visit a random web site you get tracked by google/facebook before you can be aware that this site is sending your information to them, clicking a link does not imply trust or consent.
How is that bar not cleared? You have a choice as to which websites to visit and the website developer has a choice as to which third-party pixels are included.
Yes it's lip service but this whole narrative about online/digital privacy was seize on by traditional media to bash tech companies while driving traffic to their properties. It also gives some academics and "experts" an outlet to promote their books. You have the right to choose not be watched while you're going to the bathroom but the whole online privacy "controversy" is a means by which foreign countries and othe…
>the whole online privacy "controversy" is a means by which foreign countries and other interested parties are using to try and justify stifling US tech companies Do you have a source? Would like to read up on this.