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

There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#201

Post by bojangleslover »

JasonFruit wrote: post #102
bnjemian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc. It's (mostly) in jest, but I think there's a real mismatch of expectations with a lot of modern appliances with respect to what a consumer needs and what companies use to try and differentiate their products from the competition. In evolutionary biology, there's this idea that "evolution is stingy" – in most cases, a speci…

It didn't take me long to find your smart toaster. You can't use SMS, though; have to install the app. https://www.engadget.com/2017-01-04-griffin-connects-your-to...

Can't make this shit up!

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#203

Post by op00to »

CircleSpokes wrote: post #154
jdavis703 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of “free” parking is added to the prices the store charges. It’s better to unbundle these costs — an urban parking space can cost over $50,000 to build. That’s not cheap, and will materially impact rents and the price consumers have to pay.

Why is it better to unbundle them? I don't see why a business or person would want the extra hassle of paying for parking separately. Like paying for event parking is one thing but paying to shop at a store is beyond silly. What is next paying to use the drive through?

I don’t drive much, I’d rather not pay to subsidize others when I bike or walk to the market.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#204

Post by throwaway55421 »

Gravityloss wrote: post #185
throwaway55421 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of the rent is also added to prices the store charges. The rent close to a metro station is far higher and often "local" stores are much more expensive as a result. You could attempt to unbundle that by charging people an entry fee too. Why not itemise the electricity bill whilst you're at it, etc. It's penny pinching and adds friction. I've been to Trader Joe's, if you're going there you're not at all price…

Hmm, I guess I don't understand why people who don't park should pay for parking? Sure, charging an entry fee might make sense if people were hanging out in say a cafe, without buying anything, it was really full and the rent was really high. I've heard that such places exist. Over here, paying for parking has gotten really easy in the last five years, I think two apps, both work great: Easypark for streets and parki…

If people don't park, and this is more than a minority use case, there probably shouldn't even be parking, because it's probably a massive waste of space.

None of what you've written sounds convenient, it sounds like a massive pain in the arse. If I do have to pay, I'd rather just stick some cash in a machine on the way out, paying for the time I used then and there and making it impossible to be fined or get stuck messing about with an app when something inevitably goes down.

Cashless systems for physical places should honestly be illegal, it would fix a lot of this scammy nonsense.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#205

Post by bnjemian »

unicornporn wrote: post #151
bnjemian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc. It's (mostly) in jest, but I think there's a real mismatch of expectations with a lot of modern appliances with respect to what a consumer needs and what companies use to try and differentiate their products from the competition. In evolutionary biology, there's this idea that "evolution is stingy" – in most cases, a speci…

> 100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc. The problem is that — in a not so distant future, where every company makes a large slice of its profit from selling user data — Dumb Inc. products will be a lot more expensive than the competition. As people in general are not technically competent to assess the consequences of their digital actions, they will chose the…

Maybe – but I think this assumes that general consumers will forever be unsophisticated with respect to their privacy. That may be the case, but I think it's a bold to claim to make. In my mind, that claim goes against the current trend towards more privacy.

I also highly doubt that a manufacturer of smart products would pass a "we profit off your data" discount down to consumers. Better they pocket the additional profit and then market it as a convenience for the consumer, which I think is precisely what's happening right now.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#206

Post by bojangleslover »

akudha wrote: post #44
the_snooze wrote: post #16

I hate tech like this. It ostensibly offers some minor convenience for the end-user, but it's really just a big data grab for whatever company implemented it. A few years ago, I went to a local Shake Shack and found they replaced their cashiers with kiosks. But placing an order requires me to give them my phone number, supposedly so they can text me when my order was ready. This should have been a very simple transac…

Years ago, I was at a huge electronics store in NYC. I wanted to buy something small, maybe 30 bucks worth. The cashier won’t bill unless I gave him my phone number. I asked him why he needs my number, he said “in case you return the item”. I told him he needs the receipt, not phone number, while returning items. He didn’t budge. I didn’t want to cause a scene, so I left without purchasing. It is not just collecting…

Same thing happened to me at Currys in the UK. Argued with the dude for half an hour and he finally gave in.

And they wonder why Amazon is dominating retail. Definitely heard that food and parking are different.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#207

Post by bnjemian »

JasonFruit wrote: post #102
bnjemian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc. It's (mostly) in jest, but I think there's a real mismatch of expectations with a lot of modern appliances with respect to what a consumer needs and what companies use to try and differentiate their products from the competition. In evolutionary biology, there's this idea that "evolution is stingy" – in most cases, a speci…

It didn't take me long to find your smart toaster. You can't use SMS, though; have to install the app. https://www.engadget.com/2017-01-04-griffin-connects-your-to...

:facepalm:

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#208

Post by secabeen »

GavinMcG wrote: post #4

I'm glad to see this framing. Reading the provisions identified in the article, you could easily react by saying "well, that's normal." Of course a parking app would ask for your vehicle's make/model and for your credit card information. But it is a cost, and the unrestrained use of that information is a further cost. And that's before you get into "need[ing] to monitor people’s unrelated web browsing and links they…

Is there even an app at all here? If you look at their screenshots, it's all just a website. When you "sign up", they don't send you to the Google or Apple app stores, just to their app.metropolis.io site.

When you look at the privacy policy, everything I see there is in line with a somewhat lawyerly description of what every web server receives. IP Address, Carrier (in the rDNS or WHOIS of the IP), HTTP referrers, HTTP User-Agent details, etc. Cross-device tracking is a side effect of logging into their website from multiple devices. Geo-location could be a bit intrusive, but again pretty useful to auto-identify the parking structure that you're in, and browsers allow you to deny the request for that data.

They also collect "cellphone number, email address, license plate number and credit card information, as well as the make, model and year of your vehicle.", but that's needed to provide the service.

The framing here is pretty alarmist, and all of it is based on a read of the privacy policy. A deeper dive would MITM the traffic and actually see if they were collecting data beyond the basics. Without that, the article just ends up on picking on one specific vendor/industry, without helping the reader understand how this vendor compares to other vendors and other apps.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#209

Post by emptyparadise »

yumraj wrote: post #183
Waterluvian wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone can make an absolute killing by creating an entire brand of “dumb” appliances that Just Work. Make them sensible quality, modern, entirely offline.

The problem is a certain % of HN readers and so on will but those, even pay a premium. But the rest of the population just wants smart appliances and Nest or other smart thermostats, Ring/other key hole cameras, Alexa/other smart devices and Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/… So, unfortunately it’s not going to be a very successful business because the dumb masses have been brainwashed into accepting these smart devices. I…

Do people really want this stuff or are they forced to use it? When your options are either buying this IoT thing or not buying the thing at all, what can you do?

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#210

Post by emptyparadise »

rzz3 wrote: post #90
pengaru wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully expect more cities to prohibit retail establishments from refusing cash within their jurisdictions. There's precedent for it already, on grounds of discriminating against the poor.

They’ll just call it a private club. I have no problem with it. Don’t like it, don’t shop at Amazon.

>Don’t like it, don’t shop at Amazon.

What if Amazon is the only shop for miles?

Post reply on HN