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

“We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

support.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#141

Post by chippy »

Questions about using an older version. I no longer update my mobile apps. Twitter state:

"On versions of Twitter for iOS before 6.19.1, the Tailor Twitter based on my apps setting may not display correctly. If you are impacted by this issue, please upgrade to the latest version of Twitter for iOS."

Does this mean that it is disabled for those old versions? Does it mean that they will do it but users will not be able to disable it? Does it imply that the old apps are already sending this data to them? Or is it a ploy to get people to upgrade, and not upgrading could also be a way to remain more private?

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#142

Post by ironsides »

JimDabell wrote: post #129
spc476 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run my own email server [1] using Postfix. I use greylisting [2][3] and it easily stops 50% of all spam. I looked into adding SPF, but decided against it as the effective rate was too low [4]. I've also recently looked at RBL [5] and while there were a few false positives (enough that I decided against immediately adding it) what it did catch was quite impressive [6]. Oddly enough, if I simply drop email addressed…

I think ironsides was referring to sending email, not receiving it. Sending email from a mail server without a good reputation can often land your email in spam filters these days. It's all very well saying that the amount of spam you get is manageable, but that doesn't really matter if your own outgoing email becomes unreliable because you aren't using a recognised provider.

Jim, what can we do to increase the odds of our email reaching the intended destination on self-hosted domains?

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#143

Post by e12e »

JimDabell wrote: post #129
spc476 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run my own email server [1] using Postfix. I use greylisting [2][3] and it easily stops 50% of all spam. I looked into adding SPF, but decided against it as the effective rate was too low [4]. I've also recently looked at RBL [5] and while there were a few false positives (enough that I decided against immediately adding it) what it did catch was quite impressive [6]. Oddly enough, if I simply drop email addressed…

I think ironsides was referring to sending email, not receiving it. Sending email from a mail server without a good reputation can often land your email in spam filters these days. It's all very well saying that the amount of spam you get is manageable, but that doesn't really matter if your own outgoing email becomes unreliable because you aren't using a recognised provider.

This is sadly true. With just greylisting, spam isn't much of a problem. I get some spam, most of it to an address leaked from the adobe-hack (I don't drop mail to it, I just keep the few spam emails that get through greylisting, for possible future use for training a bayesian spam filter), and some sent to my publicly registered company email (mandated by law in Norway).

It's unfortunately pretty hard to tell the difference between people being slow to reply to mails to gmail addresses, and google flagging your mail as spam for no discernibly good reason.

Anecdotally they don't care about anyone other than gmail users, so there's not much to do about it other than a) give up on the idea that gmail interops with standard email, b) hope that more people move away from gmail, or c) just tell people that you don't care that your email is filtered as spam because they're using an email provider (gmail) that doesn't deal well with email.

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#144

Post by e12e »

timthorn wrote: post #108
cm2187 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that's even worse. You are stuck with your ISP. What if you move home to a place where this ISP isn't available? There are commercial email providers in jurisdictions that do respect privacy. And it usually only costs the price of a couple of coffees per year.

You're not locked in if you own the DNS registration.

This is an important point many overlook (despite being aware of Google Apps for Work (nee Business)) -- registering a personal domain in order to have at least one email that will follow you for as long as you want -- does not mean you have to run your own incomming/outgoing email servers!

Most domain registrars will forward email for free, and most offer some form of cheap, but reasonable email service (smtp+imap).

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#145

Post by e12e »

vdaniuk wrote: post #115
simon_vetter wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that he could be living in a jurisdiction where the law provides better protection for electronic communications (email being one of them), thus preventing his ISP from reading/analyzing/reselling his emails.

Which jurisdiction would you trust in this matter?

For all the problems we've manage to create, I'll trust Norwegian provider Telenor much more than I do Google. If only because they share my jurisdiction (Norway) -- where I have rights. I have no rights in the US -- at least when I'm not physically there.

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#146

Post by e12e »

ajays wrote: post #86
zxyzzxxx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDG is the fastest of all the privacy-respecting engines, but it consistently gives me the least accurate results. It works if you search for mainstream keywords, otherwise it mostly doesn't.

Google's strength lies in (and always has been in) the tail and ambiguous queries. Everyone can get the query "facebook" right; try the query "how to disassemble tile" on Google[1] and Yahoo[2] or Bing[3]. Google knows the difference between "tile" (the gadget) and "tiles". [1] https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=how+to+disassemble+tile [2] https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=how+to+disassemble+tile&fr... [3] http://www…

Interesting example. The results for ddg improve dramatically if you add "tracker" ("tile tracker"). I'm not sure I'd consider Google's default results better -- but then I don't own a "Tile". I do get that inferring that the connection "disasemble tile" implies something other than ceramic tiles (as opposed to "repair tile" -- here ddg and google are very similar for "repair tile" and "repair tile tracker" -- although none seem to give a result for software/a device to track progress of repairing ceramic tiles...).

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#147

Post by fny »

mgraczyk wrote: post #67
fny wrote: post #42

Raise your hand if you feel like this is an unwarranted breach of privacy, but you have a gmail account and heavily depend on Google services. Raises own hand. I was so trusting and willing to give away my emails to Google when I was a kid (despite being fully aware of their intentions), but now, even though privacy infringements from all these other companies disturb me, I'm still a hypocritical sheep in Google's he…

> despite being fully aware of their intentions Those being....? Google earns its revenue by selling ads. They make more money when they show you ads that are likely to earn your business for the advertiser. Is it really so horrendous for Google to use information about you to show you ads for products you are more likely to purchase? Or are you concerned about something else?

That was my though exactly when I started, but I've realized that Google gains a greater power than showing tailored ads. Google remembers who I was better than I do, knows everything that I do today, and can probably guess who I will become. They have the power to shape the information I see and influence me to do things that will drive their bottom line with unparalleled precision.

We're really giving Google the power to read our minds: are you comfortable with that?

Aside from that, I'm vaguely concerned about keeping everything about me so centralized. There's too much to lose too easily if someone manages to hack me despite the 2FA and insane passwords.

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#148

Post by endymi0n »

Ihasapp (2011): https://github.com/danielamitay/iHasApp/blob/master/README.m...

Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8671080

Fun fact: Lots of major analytics SDKs read out your app list in this way (Android is even simpler). Your app list is already known to lots of 3rd parties if you have downloaded any of about 80% of the top 100 apps in the last 4 years.

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#149

Post by kuschku »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #128
Nullabillity wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still depending on the ISP's archives.

Building your own Postfix server isn't hard. (It's certainly not easy , but it's not too hard either.) If you're paying someone for hosting anyway it's a few days of extra work from a cold start to set up a server on Linode or Digital Ocean and become your own ISP/hosting co.

Remember that Digital Oceans’ ToS allow them to access "all and any information" in case they "consider it necessary".

Re: “We are only collecting the list of applications you have installed.”

#150

Post by Abraln »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #127
FlaceBook wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a disruptive synergistic cloud experience!

You mean it's a disruptive synergistic cloud experience offer! There seems to be some kind of institutional mental illness that forces corps to think of users as exploitable prey who can be herded down a value-extracting marketing funnel, and not as people who want a service. It's disturbingly common, IME.

I have alway thought "converting users to our brand" sounds suspiciously like "converting people to our religion/cult" just say you want loyal customers, not "devoted followers."
Post reply on HN