Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

privacyinternational.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 244 posts

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#181

Post by g_sch »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #172
enitihas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried using the unlisting UI, but it says I need to install the app and deactivate my account before unlisting. When I install the app, it refuses to run unless I grant it all sorts of permissions. So it seems before unlisting, I need to give truecaller my data. This absolutely ridiculous.

Same here. Another dark pattern is they require the country code, they could have inferred it from my IP and auto populated it or had a list of countries via a dropdown instead they bury that the country code is required in a paragraph and disable the button if the phone number lacks it. At very least enable the button and pop up a error message if the country code is lacking. How many non technical users will give u…

I don't think it's the case that your country code can be reliably inferred from your IP. When I lived in Europe, I had a German phone number but was frequently living/working in other countries.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#182

Post by astura »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #70
shaftway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're suggesting that it's a user's responsibility to proactively register their number with every single third party caller ID service that exists and ever will exist? And you consider that a "simple solution"? It does not seem unreasonable for a service like TrueCaller to notify people that user-generated information about them is being irrevocably added to a globally public repository.

> It does not seem unreasonable for a service like TrueCaller to notify people that user-generated information about them is being irrevocably added to a globally public repository. If they live in Europe, as far as I'm aware, they should actually also need the users consent if the information contains anything like a name (which it most likely does) and a way for users to have their personal data erased permanently.…

This data is like Wikipedia.

Does every Wikipedia entry about a person in Europe need that person's permission before it can be published? Can I make Wikipedia delete my Wikipedia page permanently with no way for anyone to ever to recreate it? What about a blog post? If a write about a friend of mine doing something on my blog, do I need my friend's written permission before I can post?

I'm guessing that this answer is "no."

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#183

Post by astura »

yesforwhat wrote: post #10
nutjob2 wrote: post #9

The problem here is that once you give out a number then it's public in some sense. The person you give it to can pass it on, even inadvertently. The smart thing to do is to have a public number and a private number. It makes no sense to call cabs with the same number you use to contact sources or whatever. This is easily done with dual sim phones and can be taken much further with Google Voice or other dial-in phone…

> The smart thing to do is to have a public number and a private number. What's the easiest way to do this?

Two phones.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#184

Post by ildon »

Alterlife wrote: post #39

This article focuses on the problems that truecaller poses for 'non-users". As a non-user of truecaller in India myself, I find myself in the minority. It seems I get none of the benefits (improved spam filtering, the chance to see who is calling me), and in the 'prisoners dilemma' sense, it appears I would loose nothing by installing it, because they already have my contact information. However, this is only half th…

This is one of those cases in which the GDPR is very nice to have as a European citizen

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#185

Post by harsh3195 »

lotu wrote: post #173
kkarakk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but atleast you're not visible to others edit: so in order to use this, you have to install the app - "deactivate it" and only then will it accept the unlisting. Fucking bs

BS but I imagine this is how they verify you own the number and prevent a rival app from executing a denial of services attack on them by unlisting everyone’s number.

This could also have been done using a simple OTP and on the number.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#186

Post by CaptainZapp »

Mirioron wrote: post #169
CaptainZapp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just naively applying my programmers sense of beauty to legal stuff I see that happening a lot. Actually, it's more trying to apply tech skills to societal issues, often without really thinking through the consequences or the bigger societal impact. Sidewalk Labs Toronto experiments provides a nice illustration of such issues.[1], [2] & [3] One of the buzzwords that really gets my blood boiling is "Governme…

A simpler and more elegant solution wouldn't screw over small businesses and individuals as much. An individual running a forum from their basement has to follow the same rules that Google spends tens of thousands on lawyers fees to figure out. Maybe exemptions or less strict rules for smaller companies should've been added. The EU isn't exactly a bastion of internet technology enterprises, so we probably shouldn't t…

An individual running a forum from their basement has to follow the same rules that Google spends tens of thousands on lawyers fees to figure out.

It's very, very unlikely, though, that the individual running the forum in his basement has to navigate the same legal minefields as Google or Facebook.

Implying that he has the same legal expenses as companies, whoms whole business model relies on getting around the GDPR seems to me a bit of a strawman.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#187

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux »

johnchristopher wrote: post #85

> What happened to Chloe is that one of her sources was using TrueCaller. Online communication is hard. The burden of security falls on every parties. The real hard problem for an investigative journalist here is "Considering the ubiquitous nature of communication tech How do I handle my sources so they don't blunder before I even meet them ?"

A smartphone, or any device really, only has information that you feed it. Compartmentize. Different devices for different things combined with pseudo-anonymity. It is very hard to do this and a razor-thin no-mistake margin is always there.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#188

Post by Frondo »

Kaiyou wrote: post #176
vanderZwan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are living in a complex, mostly functioning nation state where the majority of conflicts is resolved in a civil manner. Not in a small tribal society where you might be murdered by someone physically stronger than you simply because he lusts after your partner. That simple fact proves how hyperbolic and naive your statement is.

..and how have politicians of the last, let's say 20 years, positively contributed to this? If the last good day was over two decades ago, I'm not sure how you're going to sell me this as a good thing.

Depending on where you live, politicians may have enacted any number of positive life improvements, like improved public transportation infrastructure, better regulations on working conditions, better pollution regulations, small business development programs, and on and on.

If you live in an area where absolutely nothing good has happened due to government in the last 20 years, your complaint about your local/regional government is entirely warranted.

Chalking it up to "politicians" as a whole is unhelpful; they aren't "all the same" (another thing I hear often), and if one thinks so, one is profoundly not paying attention.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#189

Post by lapnitnelav »

pjc50 wrote: post #97
xixixao wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go back to the world where there is no internet. Imagine someone spreads a rumor about you. Or a praise. People might have heard this, before they even met you. It can be illegal, harmful, or beneficial, but it's under the control of the people you interact with. If you meet someone for the first time, and the person heard from someone that you're dealing drugs, and you tell her you don't, and ask them where th…

You cannot run a global civilization on the norms of a small village.

It doesn't scale.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#190

Post by mola »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #128
mola wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Robocalls are the problem, Truecaller isn't the solution. Regulations against unwanted harassment is. Robocalls are not a force of nature where our only recourse is a technological solution. They are a result of a human choice, where the absolute majority of individual think it's a menace. So our recourse is legal. band-aid solutions like Truecaller cause more problems. The Truecaller product is not a usual commod…

In essence, this is the spam debate all over again, with some extra seasoning. (The permissions are incidental - other apps exist that are polite in this respect.) So, out comes the canned spam response: Your post advocates a ( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your partic…

This is response is a total straw man argument. I was talking about robo calls, your response is about difficulties with email spam.

The phone network is controlled centrally. Government can force handling spam by phone companies, the same way they can force them to give police call logs etc for the purpose of collecting evidence.

Further more, Robocalls usually are of a more local nature (not international). Government may instruct Police to investigate origins of Robocalls and enforce sanctions. A formal complaint process could be made , where any end user may file a complaint, Providing proof is trivial. Both for the act, and origin (Robocalls are advertising a specific product from a specific company.) A law could be made which mandates a speedy process for filing relevant lawsuites with small claims court, if found guilty the offending party will be levied a large fine.

This is from the top of my head. It probably contains many flaws. But it certainly doesn't seem impossible to combat Robocalls.

Post reply on HN