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

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#411

Post by rightbyte »

mtgx wrote: post #325
pornel wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly harmless to spill regular drinkable-temperature coffee on yourself, so she took appropriate level of precaution (i.e. very little) for that reasonable assumption. She shouldn't be to blame even if she showered in the coffee. To bring it back on topic: when web users are told "we care about your privacy", they should be able to take it at face value. When the company then weasels out of the headline promis…

Yes, once again, when an issue is systemic (in this case, all coffees by McDonalds are super-hot), the user is not to blame but the vendor/system designer. It reminds me of that recent case of 90%+ passengers "putting the oxygen masks wrong" because they are "idiots" - an opinion that seemed to be shared by a lot of people even here on HN, but even more so on Twitter. https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/10…

Hmm ... I have never though about the masks and just assumed they would cover the nose "automatically" and I would maybe do the same thing.

Which such small masks, people probably believe they are doing something wrong when they are not tight against the skin (like a gas mask or scuba mask) and then puts them over the mouth where they fit tightly.

The mask people probably have experience with are scuba mask or gas masks and they both need to fit tightly.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#412

Post by mavhc »

drusepth wrote: post #410
wtmt wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. What are the privacy issues in Android 10? Anything new compared to previous versions?

I think the biggest one is some bad wording on the marketing around the "share your wifi" feature, where it mentions that you can share "secure" passwords with QR codes now but doesn't mention that the QR code has the plaintext password encoded in it. Other than that, it seems that privacy controls have been generally improved in Android 10.

My Honor 7 has been doing that for 3 years, Android 6.

It's called a pre shared key for a reason.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#413

Post by drusepth »

hnarn wrote: post #279
GavinMcG wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. If Alice tells her coworker Bob that she had diabetes, it's not a HIPAA violation for Bob to tell Charlie.

> HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. Maybe not, but GDPR sure is.

Is it really? If Alice tells Bob she has diabetes and Bob tells Charlie, is Bob in violation of GDPR?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#414

Post by ryan93 »

amelius wrote: post #64

Targeted ads are already a serious leak of information. If somebody looks over my shoulder and sees the ads presented to me, they can infer things about me. Also, if a malicious actor targets an ad to a group of people, and some of these people buy the advertised items, then the actor can infer things about those people not necessarily related to the items sold.

Why are so many people that paranoid. No one is gonna destroy your life because they saw your ads

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#416

Post by alexnewman »

rvz wrote: post #8

It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. Then the Go modules proxy issue around the Go Programming language that raised suspicions about tracking usage statistics around downloading modules turned on by default without any consent and now this. I think there are some folks at Google who ha…

I've found that whenever I post anything anti google on hackernews I'm downvoted and people call me names.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#417

Post by mavhc »

ahallock wrote: post #352
adossi wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had ads for things that I only just spoke about, out loud, to someone near me like a friend or family member, show up on a computer in a different country.

I've had ads for things spoken about show up in FB. I have more of a libertarian mindset, but that really creeps me out and I think speech-based ads be outright banned due to privacy concerns. It's not so much the ads; it's being recorded and potentially having those recordings leak in a data breach.

Or it's just one of 100 coincidences that happen to you every day.

Easy to prove, store a log of all your network traffic, and record all the audio you speak, then when you see a match, go back, find the proof, become world famous

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#418

Post by drusepth »

tgragnato wrote: post #243
kupiakos wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the opt-in rather than opt-out, but does disabling Ads Personalization [1] not do what you're asking? [1]: https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated?hl=en

No, a Google account shouldn’t be required.

Why not? How else would Google know who not to track? It's not like they can identify you and remember that preference without a Google account...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#419

Post by alexeldeib »

JustARandomGuy wrote: post #408
frogpelt wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit. 1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's. 2. She spilled it on herself. 3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries. Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask. A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider i…

Mark me down as a person who considers it a frivolous lawsuit. And yes I've read the background. She balanced the cup not in a cupholder, but between her knees. Even normally hot coffee is going to be bad news if it spills like that - the only difference the increased temp made was that the burns were more severe. But the coffee would not have spilled at all if she was not negligent in handling it (i.e. she should ha…

They discuss the car not having any flat surface to place the cup. Putting a cup between your legs in that situation is pretty common, if not foolproof.

She went into shock and had to be rushed to the ER. 1/6th of her body was burned. The coffee was 30 degrees hotter, putting it closer to boiling than to the average temperature other machines served at. I dipped my hand in a fresh cup of coffee at home just now for reference. I could hold it fine for 3-5 seconds (which should get me close to a third degree burn with McD).

They also had over 700 reports of previous burns -- doesn't that sound like a systemic problem? The jurors, after seeing images of her injuries and reports of previous injuries, increased the punitive damages. I think the amounts are telling:

Plaintiff: ~20k (medical/legal fees)

McD: 800

Jurors: 2.7m

Judge: ~650k

Final settlement: < 500k

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#420

Post by raxxorrax »

jhall1468 wrote: post #347
raxxorrax wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Enabled by default can and should be the default for security-related features. Not since Google uses the argument of increased security to justify data collection for quite some time in the interest of itself.

You are free to setup your own DB if that's a concern for you. It's a totally justified concern, but this is just concern-trolling. Most people would use this either way. People with strong privacy concerns may setup their own DB, but they represent the minority (despite the heavily privacy-biased stance of HN users). If you're in the minority, you should expect to have to do more work to get the right balance of sec…

I am just criticizing collecting data under the veneer of security or creating a dependence at this point. These are two completely separate issues and the argument for security is used to justify questionable practices.

> If you're in the minority, you should expect to have to do more work to get the right balance of security and privacy.

It is exactly this false dichotomy that I am criticizing here, because it is completely baseless.

You are reading an article that hints to privacy violations.

You can only be secure if your privacy is protected. That is the causal relation between these two needs.

Post reply on HN