601–610 of 1001 posts
What I want is very simple: I want software that doesn't send anything to the Internet without some explicit intent first . All of that work to try to make this feature plausibly private is cool engineering work, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a feature like this, but it should absolutely be opt-in. Trust in software will continue to erode until software stops treating end users and their data…
That’s an interesting question. Something to consider, iOS photos has allowed you to search for photos using the address the photo was taken at. To do that requires the Photos app to take the lat/long of a photos location, and do a reverse-geo lookup to get a human understandable address. Something that pretty much always involves querying a global reverse-geo service.
Do you consider this feature to be a violation of your privacy, requiring an opt-in? If not, then how is a reverse-geo lookup service more private than a landmark lookup service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opt in doesn't work, it never did. The vast majority (>95%) of users does not understand what those pop-ups say, seems fundamentally incapable of reading them, and either always accepts, always rejects, or always clicks the more visually-appealing button. Try observing a family member who is not in tech and not in the professional managerial class, and ask them what pop-up they just dismissed and why. It's one of the…
Well, then >95% of users won't be using $FEATURE. Simple as that. The fact that users for some reason no not consent to $FEATURE the way corporations/shareholders would want them to does not give anyone the right to stop asking for consent in the first place.
Every time one of these articles pops up about this sort of behaviour but one of the big tech companies, I'm always struck by the differences in the comments you get. I wonder if Google would be getting the benefit of the doubt like apple is currently getting were Google to implement the exact same thing as an opt-out feature?
What I want is very simple: I want software that doesn't send anything to the Internet without some explicit intent first . All of that work to try to make this feature plausibly private is cool engineering work, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a feature like this, but it should absolutely be opt-in. Trust in software will continue to erode until software stops treating end users and their data…
Opt in doesn't work, it never did. The vast majority (>95%) of users does not understand what those pop-ups say, seems fundamentally incapable of reading them, and either always accepts, always rejects, or always clicks the more visually-appealing button. Try observing a family member who is not in tech and not in the professional managerial class, and ask them what pop-up they just dismissed and why. It's one of the…
So what can Apple do with this assuming they can send anything not just "landmarks". What metadata about the image do they get? Are images from the web or social media or device screenshots accessible too? Seems at the very least they are getting a database of things, objects and shapes. Can cohorts of users be identified? Useful for ad targeting? They should be able to determine how many devices have a photo of a pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opt in doesn't work, it never did. The vast majority (>95%) of users does not understand what those pop-ups say, seems fundamentally incapable of reading them, and either always accepts, always rejects, or always clicks the more visually-appealing button. Try observing a family member who is not in tech and not in the professional managerial class, and ask them what pop-up they just dismissed and why. It's one of the…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opt in doesn't work, it never did. The vast majority (>95%) of users does not understand what those pop-ups say, seems fundamentally incapable of reading them, and either always accepts, always rejects, or always clicks the more visually-appealing button. Try observing a family member who is not in tech and not in the professional managerial class, and ask them what pop-up they just dismissed and why. It's one of the…
[flagged]
"I don't understand most of the technical details of Apple's blog post" I do: - Client side vectorization: the photo is processed locally, preparing a non-reversible vector representation before sending (think semantic hash). - Differential privacy: a decent amount of noise is added the the vector before sending it. Enough to make it impossible to reverse lookup the vector. The noise level here is ε = 0.8, which is q…
Thank you for this comment. I found the author's ignorance to be fairly discrediting, and was surprised to find so many follow up comments equally railing on Apple. Between the quote you pointed out and: "One thing I do know, however, is that Apple computers are constantly full of privacy and security vulnerabilities, as proved by Apple's own security release notes" which just reeks of survivorship bias. I think the…