21–30 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Listen, this is nothing new. "Violations of your constitutional rights have been going on for decades now, so it's time to shut up about them" is certainly a take.
Action speaks louder than words. It doesn't matter what people say they prefer, their actions reveal a true preference.
This story cones uo time and time again, people rail about the data buyer, but practically speaking any one or thing can buy that data and use it against you and yours. The very collection/assembly of life data is dangerous.
Buying commercially available location records from data brokers would be far less concerning without the capability to, per Anthropic’s CEO words, assemble from that data “a comprehensive picture of any person's life—automatically and at massive scale”. It’s a world of difference between when you have to work hard to construct (and keep up-to-date) such a picture for a single individual, and when someone can do it f…
Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list.
Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
Listen, this is nothing new. You can find articles like that going back years and years. The truth is: convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. Two examples: 1. Theoretically speaking, my (data) privacy is of a high value to me! -- Then you should stop using a smart phone. -- Well... 2. I don't want anyone to create a profile of my habits because it's none of their business! -- Hi, do you have a Walm…
I quite recently found that the "CRED" app works by requesting permission to access the user's WHOLE INBOX and reading their mails. The users apparently have no problems giving access to their all mails to some app that they don't have control or ability to scrutinize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list. Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list. Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
The local or federal government do not have the right, or need to know the whereabouts of the average law abiding citizen. There is no "free" information, all information has a cost, whether it be acquisition or storage. Currently the people are taxed to oppress themselves. There is no choice not to be taxed, there is no consent.
[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/706321/means-of-con...
Listen, this is nothing new. You can find articles like that going back years and years. The truth is: convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. Two examples: 1. Theoretically speaking, my (data) privacy is of a high value to me! -- Then you should stop using a smart phone. -- Well... 2. I don't want anyone to create a profile of my habits because it's none of their business! -- Hi, do you have a Walm…
>convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. T I quite recently found that the "CRED" app works by requesting permission to access the user's WHOLE INBOX and reading their mails. The users apparently have no problems giving access to their all mails to some app that they don't have control or ability to scrutinize.
Forget that!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your tone implies it. "Listen, this is nothing new" is a phrase dripping with "I'm tired of hearing about this". You surely know that the people pointing out continually escalating violations know that the violations are not new.
You inferred it. They did not imply it. They might simply be tired of listening to armchair protestors who don’t take even the most basic actions to backup their words.
They offered nothing to counteract the idea that we should just shut up and accept it. Then they closed with "And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data." - which sounds like they have given up opposition, and are now considering ways to profit from the situation rather than fight it.