The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022) • Hacker News Board

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#131

Post by radarsat1 » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

omniglottal wrote: post #128

radarsat1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supermarkets used to have coupons that you had to cut out of the paper to get discounts on certain items. That was already bullshit -- if you can sell it at that price, please sell it at that price! Why the extra hoop of cutting up a magazine first? Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount…

Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.

> The loyalty card still works

huh? at least in my supermarket it doesn't work, unless you activate it, the new thing being that you can't do that anymore without installing the app. Not sure if that was unclear in my story.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#132

Post by BurningFrog » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #120

BurningFrog wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think it's accurate in predicting which customers will generate bigger or smaller claims, but not in who is a bad or good driver? To me those are functionally the same thing.

No, I think it gives a veneer of data to the insurance company demanding more money, irrespective of any correlation to claims rates.

Seems simpler to just raise the rates.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#133

Post by sircastor » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 12:32 AM UTC

ThaDood wrote: post #10

I mean, I know its not practical for everyone or every application - that being said I have made it my highest priority to go out of my way to not use services or products that require apps to be installed. Obviously I make exceptions for stuff I deem "required" but for coffee chains, fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other services if they need an "app" for me to use it. I just won't use it. Or I will go out…

The store where we buy groceries (A Kroger owned company) has begun to offer “digital” coupons that are available through its app with a login. They are substantial savings and in many cases something I’d take advantage of. I’m bothered by it and we’re fortunately able to afford not to buy with those coupons. But there are undoubtedly a lot of people who don’t realistically have that choice.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#134

Post by sircastor » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 12:38 AM UTC

omniglottal wrote: post #128

radarsat1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supermarkets used to have coupons that you had to cut out of the paper to get discounts on certain items. That was already bullshit -- if you can sell it at that price, please sell it at that price! Why the extra hoop of cutting up a magazine first? Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount…

Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.

One of my favorite “hacks” is to use the phone number option and put in your local area code + 867-5309 (a number from a famous 80s pop song). You lose out on “savings points” or whatever, but if discounts are offered to card holders you get that discount.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#135

Post by xethos » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 4:55 AM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #93

theonlybutlet wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A handy alternative, is to temporarily utilize the app over a week or two to see what's making requests and then go into app permissions on that app and prevent it from using mobile data in the background and running in the background.

Is there a good reason to ever allow any app to do these things?

Yes and yes: I use syncthing, and I just want it to make the changes in the background. My best case scenario is never opening the Syncthing app again, because it's quietly doing it's thing in the background, sometimes on data.

Otherwise, my girlfriend, parents, and likely 90% of the people you know all use photo backup. Whether it's iCloud, Google Photos, or a NAS, we all want the option to use mobile data, and likely want it to simply run in the background.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#136

Post by ta988 » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

anonym29 wrote: post #117

ROTMetro wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably using the VPN mechanism to grab traffic for inspection and can't do what it does without that.

If it can inspect the traffic, why would it demand I turn off DoH? I could understand one or the other, but both?

because you can't do dns level blocking with doh because of https.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#137

Post by sfn42 » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #97

pnut wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.

> I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour On what basis? You probably have something different in your mind than what I am actually referring to. I'm not talking about people skidding to a stop or laying a stripe of rubber when they take off, and short of that, there is basically no increase in risk from accelerating or decelerating more rapidly than a grandmother hy…

That's bullshit.

Higher speed generally means less margin for error in unexpected circumstances and more serious consequences when an accident does happen.

And if you frequently have to brake hard that's a pretty good indication that you're driving recklessly - following too close, driving too fast, not being ready for predictable events such as a pedestrian crossing the road etc.

Some times it's necessary. But if it's necessary every time you get in your car you're not a safe driver - practically every one of those hard decelerations occur because you are trying to avoid an accident. It follows that if you were to have a small lapse of attention or judgement, you wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident.

If you give yourself more margin for error you rarely have to brake hard. Keep a good distance to cars in front, slow down in unpredictable situations, respect the speed limit because it was set for a reason.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#138

Post by mcpackieh » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

friendzis wrote: post #110

mcpackieh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strictly necessary cookies do not have to be session cookies. If you read https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ it says they generally will be session cookies, not that they must be. If you think it is appropriate for your users to be already logged in the next time they run their web browser, using a persistent cookie for that is permitted.

Yes, they can become persistent once you get consent or other grounds. You probably get that consent in registration form and "recall" it on login. Otherwise you process data from across sessions, which is a huge red flag.

Wrong, you don't need consent for these kind of cookies.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#139

Post by tristor » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

sfn42 wrote: post #137

tristor wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour On what basis? You probably have something different in your mind than what I am actually referring to. I'm not talking about people skidding to a stop or laying a stripe of rubber when they take off, and short of that, there is basically no increase in risk from accelerating or decelerating more rapidly than a grandmother hy…

That's bullshit. Higher speed generally means less margin for error in unexpected circumstances and more serious consequences when an accident does happen. And if you frequently have to brake hard that's a pretty good indication that you're driving recklessly - following too close, driving too fast, not being ready for predictable events such as a pedestrian crossing the road etc. Some times it's necessary. But if it…

> That's bullshit.

This could only be said by someone that isn’t experienced driving on US Interstates.

If what you say is true, why don’t we do 20mph everywhere? Could it be that the safe speed to drive is conditional, like I stated? Could it be that what I wrote is no bullshit after all?

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#140

Post by sfn42 » Sat, Sep 02, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #139

sfn42 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bullshit. Higher speed generally means less margin for error in unexpected circumstances and more serious consequences when an accident does happen. And if you frequently have to brake hard that's a pretty good indication that you're driving recklessly - following too close, driving too fast, not being ready for predictable events such as a pedestrian crossing the road etc. Some times it's necessary. But if it…

> That's bullshit. This could only be said by someone that isn’t experienced driving on US Interstates. If what you say is true, why don’t we do 20mph everywhere? Could it be that the safe speed to drive is conditional, like I stated? Could it be that what I wrote is no bullshit after all?

We don't do 20mph everywhere because interstates etc exist. In some places the roads are really good and straight and they have separators between oncoming traffic and it makes sense to go 80mph or whatever.

Here in Norway most roads are max 80 kph which I think is roughly 45mph. Many roads have been downgraded from 80kph to 70kph because accidents at 70kph are significantly less fatal than at 80. They have also added separators between oncoming lanes in highways to minimize head on collisions.

Some year recently we had 0 fatalities in children. This is because we have improved problematic road segments and improved road safety.

I have had some discussions with US citizens presenting the same viewpoints you are. Generally on videos on Reddit showing exactly why they are wrong. My experience watching a lot of traffic accidents in reddit subs like r/idiotsincars is that the vast majority of accidents are because both parties made a mistake. One party may have been more at fault, but both were indisputably at fault.

In these comment threads I've seen a lot of comments presenting that American viewpoint that you have to break the law to be safe. I just don't buy it. I've driven for a lot of years, following the law and driving defensively has kept me safe.