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

Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 348 posts

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#311

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #198
dheera wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies have "fiduciary duty" to do the thing that gets them the most money within legal bounds, and not the ethically right thing. As in, they have a duty to breach ethics for profit as long as it's legal. Stupid concept which I wish we could abolish but that's the way the economy is currently setup.

That’s not what a fiduciary duty is. The fiduciary duty is for a broker dealer to act in your best interests rather than rip you off. A company’s management has a duty to shareholders to work on behalf of the shareholders and not on behalf of their own well being. That usually means profit because that’s what most shareholders own the company for, not for charity. But there is no particular duty to maximize it at all…

Yes, company has fiduciary duty towards its shareholders. That term applies to any situation where there is trust involved, not only brokers. Though it's mostly applied to financial advisors and fund managers.

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#312

Post by permo-w »

dheera wrote: post #190
EastSmith wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DuckDuckGo have said that they make less money, because they use only the search term not other data/tracking. But they still make money.

Big companies have "fiduciary duty" to do the thing that gets them the most money within legal bounds, and not the ethically right thing. As in, they have a duty to breach ethics for profit as long as it's legal. Stupid concept which I wish we could abolish but that's the way the economy is currently setup.

that’s Milton Friedman’s fault

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#313

Post by amelius »

nine_k wrote: post #288
amelius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, if some authority finds your personal information on some server, and they can't produce your digital signature on a contract which says that the company can keep the information from some date to some other date, then they are in violation. It is simply not possible to lie about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature

Now every person needs to have a government-verified signing key, and suddenly consent given on disparate sites can be trivially linked to the same public key that verifies it...

Why does there need to be only one public key per user?

The authorities only have to look at the leaked information, contact you, and ask you to generate proof that you signed the contract.

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#314

Post by dcow »

specialist wrote: post #295
dcow wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fantasy names are a psychologically manipulative marketing tactic deployed to cause you to associate the thing you are consuming with something unrelated to the thing you are consuming so as to divert your attention from the thing you are consuming to some other (presumably more exciting) topic thereby increasing likelihood that you consume the product. Or they're a brand identity entirely divorced from the actual na…

> Fantasy names are a psychologically manipulative marketing tactic... "Sprite" is psychologically manipulative but "VitaminWater" isn't? OMG, pick a side.

My side is that it’s absurd to hold Coke responsible for not choosing a name that might be misleading to somebody. And that I find the VitaminWater trial absurd. My point about fantasy names is exactly that they’re not any different from VitaminWater so what gives? It’s rhetorical.

Marketing is all manipulative tactics born out of a desire to push more product not help people be healthy. Assuming Coke is somehow responsible for our health is skirting personal responsibility and passing the blame no different than the “fast food makes you fat let’s tell McDonalds what type of oil to use but not the restaurant down the street which is twice as unhealthy” mentality. It’s downright irresponsible to operate under the assumption that a company’s marketing department is going to give you an unbiased wholesome view of reality. I don't see how pretending Coke is some angel of healthy drink knowledge and herald of good diets that fell from grace with vitaminwater because they neglected to mention in the title “oh btw there’s some sugar” so must be punished is anything other than blissful ignorance at best.

My visceral reaction to the absurdity of the trial is derived from what I perceive as lazy inconsistency in how we approach the ethics of advertising. Cherry picking VitaminWater, a drink where the facts are spelled out explicitly on the label on every bottle, of all things, feels more like an effort to dodge responsibility by attacking big soda than a true attempt to ask whether we should be allowing corporate propaganda to influence certain aspects of society. I really don't want the courts having an opinion on what makes a healthy diet. And I don’t want companies doing so either. It’s not a disagreement that we shouldn't try to stop manipulative marketing. It’s that I don't want any company anywhere trying to tell me what is healthy and what isn't when there is money to be made based on the message they present.

Essentially I believe all marketing is manipulative and we should do away with all of it of we truly want to build a smarter society.

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#315

Post by dcow »

notyourwork wrote: post #289
dcow wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've trusted Coca Cola to give you health advice? No offense but that's patently insane. Your doctor gives you health advice not a sugared soft-drink company with a motive to withhold any negative information about its products from you so you'll continue to consume them. I assume you trust Google to give you privacy advice, no? I don't know what a reasonable consumer is then. The first thing I usually do when reac…

You cannot be serious with this line of thinking.

I am describing to you how I live my life. Why would I lie?

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#316

Post by dcow »

specialist wrote: post #297
dcow wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everything that has sugar in it but doesn't explicitly spell it out in the name must be renamed to include a reference to sugar in the name? Frosted flakes -> sugar frosted flakes, rice crispy bars aren't just rice + crispy, they're rice + sugar + crispy. Orange juice -> orange juice and added sugar. I mean come on it doesn't work. All that said, the term vitamin is also entirely subjective. Nothing about "vitamin…

> I mean come on it doesn't work. You're right. We shouldn't allow marketing candy as food.

And we shouldn’t allow marketing drugs period. Australia got this one right.

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#318

Post by neolog »

dcow wrote: post #314
specialist wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fantasy names are a psychologically manipulative marketing tactic... "Sprite" is psychologically manipulative but "VitaminWater" isn't? OMG, pick a side.

My side is that it’s absurd to hold Coke responsible for not choosing a name that might be misleading to somebody . And that I find the VitaminWater trial absurd. My point about fantasy names is exactly that they’re not any different from VitaminWater so what gives? It’s rhetorical. Marketing is all manipulative tactics born out of a desire to push more product not help people be healthy. Assuming Coke is somehow res…

Do you know other people who agree with your last sentence? I'm curious how widespread this view is.

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#319

Post by gorbypark »

jrnichols wrote: post #266
howzitallworkeh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, you will find iOS bad in different ways. For example: you cannot install NoScript, or anything like it, on an iOS browser. You must choose between "all JS on" or "all JS off", and third-party browsers like Firefox are crippled because Apple forces all iOS browsers to use their WebKit engine under the hood. The myriad of Safari "content blocker" apps are also pretty dismal, and often expensive. So ad-bl…

> The myriad of Safari "content blocker" apps are also pretty dismal, and often expensive. So ad-blocking is difficult as well. Not really. Firefox Focus is free and does a great job. Nomorobo is a call filtering service and it's $20/year, and it also does a great job of blocking ads & other objects. ka-block does a good job and it's free.

Fun fact, Firefox Focus’ ad blocking works for all browsers. I have it installed just to block ads in Safari!

Re: Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private

#320

Post by gorbypark »

justbrowsing_ wrote: post #176
howzitallworkeh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, you will find iOS bad in different ways. For example: you cannot install NoScript, or anything like it, on an iOS browser. You must choose between "all JS on" or "all JS off", and third-party browsers like Firefox are crippled because Apple forces all iOS browsers to use their WebKit engine under the hood. The myriad of Safari "content blocker" apps are also pretty dismal, and often expensive. So ad-bl…

Firefox "Focus" browser does the trick for ad-blocking and erasing history on iOS. No tab support though.

If you install Firefox Focus, you can use its as blocking in all browsers. I use it in regular Safari. I can’t remember if this happens by default after installing Focus, but if you go to Settings - Safari - Content Blockers, you can enable/disable the Firefox Focus blocker for regular Safari.
Post reply on HN