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

The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

the-tls.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#111

Post by rndomsrmn »

lightswitch05 wrote: post #108
rndomsrmn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dnsmasq 'address=' function is just a substr() call, which is as fast as 'normal' hostname blocking (host == "adhost.com"). No regex magic is required there. You are not able to block something like 'ads.%.adhost.com', but only (prepending wildcard) '%.ads.adhost.com', which in practice will cover almost all scenarios where random subdomains are used by adhosts.

Pihole uses a forked version of dnsmasq they named 'Pi-hole FTL engine'. I don't believe there are any features of dnsmasq that cannot be used with the PiHole - but how to configure it to work alongside of PiHole might not be as obvious.

It is possible to use this feature 'in' Pi-Hole, see: https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists/wiki/Install-...

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#112

Post by nemo »

ailideex wrote: post #73
anoncake wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads don't just inform people that Scientology exists, that's widely known. They try to manipulate them into joining. The "real" problem here is that people can be manipulated like that. But until we find a way to remove that vulnerability we must stop Scientology from exploiting it.

But is Scientology's view not that we are essentially manipulated into our current value and belief systems? Why does your goal of trying to limit their "manipulation" have more validity than their goal of limiting yours?

"Why does your goal of trying to limit their "manipulation" have more validity than their goal of limiting yours?"

Because Scientology's views aren't held in good faith and claims about society should be assumed to be pretexts used to justify the quoted excuse for predatory behavior. Scientology has a history of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, and other extreme exploitation and don't deserve any benefit of the doubt. Their views do have less validity since they're known bad actors.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#113

Post by plughs »

Juliate wrote: post #67
8fingerlouie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Going cold turkey is never easy. If you're having trouble withdrawing, consider what I did over the past few years The main issue, at least for me, is that everything social that is happening is arranged through Facebook. My kids school events, social events in the town i live in, hell even the good old paper adds from our local grocery store has been replaced with posts on Facebook. Everything is announced and coor…

It is always an option. It starts with replying "I don't have Facebook and won't sign up to this thing" to everyone that explain that they are only on Facebook; even before you close your account. Just signalling that Facebook-only is not ok. You're not so much being left out of everything as much as they are leaving people (you're far from alone) out of their events. And that's part of the clever thing Facebook does…

Being left out of social events is a significant reduction in my quality of life. I've got enough reasons to stay home all day without deliberately excluding myself from social events.

Organizers of these events have enough to manage without going to the effort of finding everyone who is not on facebook and contacting them. And let's stay away from "if they are real friends they will make the extra effort", as it is usually a good way to find out how few 'real friends' you have.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#114

Post by andrepd »

markovbot wrote: post #33
lisper wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a job for a burner phone.

Why would someone buy a whole new phone just to use a shitty advertising network they explicitly did not want to use?

You can get a free SIM, but even if you have to pay 5$ or whatever... many people still need to use facebook messenger to get in touch with some people, for instance.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#115

Post by Juliate »

plughs wrote: post #113
Juliate wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is always an option. It starts with replying "I don't have Facebook and won't sign up to this thing" to everyone that explain that they are only on Facebook; even before you close your account. Just signalling that Facebook-only is not ok. You're not so much being left out of everything as much as they are leaving people (you're far from alone) out of their events. And that's part of the clever thing Facebook does…

Being left out of social events is a significant reduction in my quality of life. I've got enough reasons to stay home all day without deliberately excluding myself from social events. Organizers of these events have enough to manage without going to the effort of finding everyone who is not on facebook and contacting them. And let's stay away from "if they are real friends they will make the extra effort", as it is…

So, in some way, they let Facebook win by bullying people into their closed garden.

Edit: and I mean _they_, not you.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#116

Post by markandrewj »

matsemann wrote: post #57
IshKebab wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it isn't very clear about it at all, and it actually only talks about it in advice about the legislation - not in the main body of the legislation. It also isn't clear if you can do things like "Click here to continue for free with tracking, or pay to access without tracking".

No, it's very clear. From the guidelines: > Consent will not be free in cases where there is any element of compulsion, pressure or inability to exercise free will

It should also be a law that customers can not be opted-in by default, or through consent buried in a 100 page TOS agreement. There should be a requirement that the question is presented to the user in a clear way.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#117

Post by yakireev »

smichel17 wrote: post #18
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have been mulling cancelling my Facebook account for a while now Going cold turkey is never easy. If you're having trouble withdrawing, consider what I did over the past few years: 1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone; then 2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone; next 3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone; then 4. Delete the Faceb…

When I deleted my account, I went through one additional step: 6. Delete your account. Create a new account under a pseudonym. Add a single friend, who can add you to group chats. At this point, you should have a near-empty news feed; Facebook is only for staying in touch with the group (eg, not missing out on social events) until people have gotten used to texting you to invite you to things. You won't be able to co…

Nope, that won't work. Facebook will ask you for a phone number and for a selfie. It will then match both against their databases, and ask you for an ID if there is none.

You can get a "burner" phone number and even a physical phone (that's what I do for whatsapp), but you can't have a burner face to make selfies.

...so now I don't have a FB account at all, and it is very inconvenient.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#118

Post by matsemann »

markandrewj wrote: post #116
matsemann wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's very clear. From the guidelines: > Consent will not be free in cases where there is any element of compulsion, pressure or inability to exercise free will

It should also be a law that customers can not be opted-in by default, or through consent buried in a 100 page TOS agreement. There should be a requirement that the question is presented to the user in a clear way.

It is. The consent has to be explicit and informed.

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#119

Post by zimpenfish »

markandrewj wrote: post #116
matsemann wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's very clear. From the guidelines: > Consent will not be free in cases where there is any element of compulsion, pressure or inability to exercise free will

It should also be a law that customers can not be opted-in by default, or through consent buried in a 100 page TOS agreement. There should be a requirement that the question is presented to the user in a clear way.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=15288746...

Article 7 is the key bit, specifically entry 2: "...the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language."

(edited to remove superfluous GDPR reference)

Re: The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy

#120

Post by stronglikedan »

nemo wrote: post #112
ailideex wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is Scientology's view not that we are essentially manipulated into our current value and belief systems? Why does your goal of trying to limit their "manipulation" have more validity than their goal of limiting yours?

"Why does your goal of trying to limit their "manipulation" have more validity than their goal of limiting yours?" Because Scientology's views aren't held in good faith and claims about society should be assumed to be pretexts used to justify the quoted excuse for predatory behavior. Scientology has a history of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, and other extreme exploitation and don't deserve any benefit of the doubt. T…

I personally think they are kooks, and their views are less valid to me, but I also realize that it's just my subjective opinion. They also have the subjective opinion that their views are valid to them, and our views have less validity. No way to say who's "right", so they should be allowed to advertise until we agree on laws (still subjective) to possibly invalidate their views.
Post reply on HN