41–50 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that? The only good use that comes to mind is MAC filtering, and that's easily defeated anyways.
DHCP with static (reserved) IP addresses comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people, if it explained to them, would be generally uncomfortable with the idea of their movements in a public place being so specifically logged. How would you feel if every time you were in a store, an employee followed you around and took notes on your actions?
Thanks for a constructive response to my question. I'm simply trying to gain a better understanding of the situation. > How would you feel if every time you were in a store, an employee followed you around and took notes on your actions? Most people would feel uneasy/bothered by that. But are those emotions warranted? If we did not get such emotions, would the same scenario be okay? Or are the emotions a consequence…
It's less visibly intrusive, but the effect is the same. Our instincts aren't very good at reacting to effects we can't see, having evolved in a world where there were no undetectable ways for someone to follow us. Thus, we should consider what our natural reactions would be to a person doing the thing we want to use technology to do, before we create the technology to do it.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple.
Yes, Apple certainly wouldn't develop/release a product whose sole purpose is to track user's physical presence, with the primary use point being able to sell the ability to push 'app usage': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/03/apples-ios-8-uses-...
This is about the ability to track handsets, and how Apple wants to corner the market on tracking their own handsets.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. It's difficult to reconcile this claim with their participation in PRISM et. al., previous long-term storage of cell tower locations, ownership of a mobile ad netwo…
Use (or abuse) of the patent system seems entirely orthogonal to privacy/security.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple.
If this becomes the trend (which in my opinon would be nice) it will become a big problem for companies that specialise in customer tracking e.g. for supermarkets and big department stores. Previously it was quite easy to track a customer, how long he or she spends time in the store, which floors he or she visits, etc. by putting up dummy WiFI-networks that the customers phones find by giving out their MAC-addresses.
It's opt-out for consumers, and in order to opt-out, you must register your MAC address with them[1][2].
I really hope that cycling MAC addresses becomes easier on mobile devices, if not automatic.
[0] http://nomi.com
[2] Assuming you even know that this service exists (which most consumers don't, because why would the store owner tell them that they're doing this?)
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple.
This will be an interesting competition. Google, for openness and transparency; Apple, for control and privacy.
[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1bef71b8-e433-11e3-a73a-00144...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. It should be a problem for them.
I'm genuinely curious, how does it being a problem for them benefit you? (I'm assuming you're not saying that out of indifferent malice but because you have personal gains, which is normal.) Can you please elaborate on your point?
My other beef here is that this is just another way to further dumb down and make retail employment completely mindless.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple.
It's pretty clear that Apple is positioning themselves in stark contrast to Google, they want to be the privacy/security company. Internet companies with advertising business models are a dime a dozen so that is a real advantage that differentiates Apple. It's difficult to reconcile this claim with their participation in PRISM et. al., previous long-term storage of cell tower locations, ownership of a mobile ad netwo…
- I don't see how constructing a database of cell tower locations violates privacy. They are beacons used for finding the user's location when they have location services turned on.
- iAd is a joke of an ad network, and stores a negligible amount of user data compared to Google's. It's also relatively easy to reset tracking on iAd, for the few apps that do use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DHCP with static (reserved) IP addresses comes to mind.
Yes, I do this at home because it resolves the problem of a duplicate IP addresses on the network caused by a device assuming it still has the same IP address (Apple devices seems to do this in particular) while meanwhile another one has taken it.