11–20 of 21 posts
I want a personal mobile phone that I can use to communicate with my friends and surf web pages with no history shared with anyone. Who else wants this?
I want a personal mobile phone that I can use to communicate with my friends and surf web pages with no history shared with anyone. Who else wants this?
You can't hide your browsing from your carrier. AFAIK, Apple is not that motivated to track their customers, and has made privacy and security part of their brand.
Lots of older discussion in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12760003 What I don't understand is that the article says that the change was made in the summer. So how come no-one spotted this until now?
I thought about this as well, I think its just a symptom of "privacy policy fatigue", how many of these notifications does the average person using a handful of services receive in a year? The velocity of updates to them seems to be increasing. Also quantifying the impact or intent of the changes is not always obvious and clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly not the carriers or vendors. Sadly, it seems "the public" just doesn't care all that much. (If they're even aware of the implications of their complacency, which seems doubtful.)
People definitely care on a deep level, but how could a non-technical person express their lack of consent? I hear people expressing their concerns in the form of paranoid theories. But their theories are true. Many people I know already censor themselves around phones, assuming the devices are listening and sending personal conversations back to some server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought about this as well, I think its just a symptom of "privacy policy fatigue", how many of these notifications does the average person using a handful of services receive in a year? The velocity of updates to them seems to be increasing. Also quantifying the impact or intent of the changes is not always obvious and clear.
Can we crawl privacy policies and commit each change into a repo -- and maintain this as a public resource?
Unfortunately I can't remember the site's name, or find it in my bookmarks, sorry.
I want a personal mobile phone that I can use to communicate with my friends and surf web pages with no history shared with anyone. Who else wants this?
Certainly not the carriers or vendors. Sadly, it seems "the public" just doesn't care all that much. (If they're even aware of the implications of their complacency, which seems doubtful.)
I think at some point soon, reality is going to force ordinary people to become more aware of the privacy and security implications of all these technologies they accept into their lives. The trouble is, as we've just seen with the IoT DDoS attack, by the time large numbers of people become sufficiently aware and motivated to do something about these issues, serious problems may already have happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People definitely care on a deep level, but how could a non-technical person express their lack of consent? I hear people expressing their concerns in the form of paranoid theories. But their theories are true. Many people I know already censor themselves around phones, assuming the devices are listening and sending personal conversations back to some server.
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If the (ostensible) purpose of laws is to keep people/corporations in check, and our representatives make the laws, then the answer to your question, it seems to me, would be political activism, would it not?
The trouble is, most of our elections are decided on a very small number of very high profile and high impact policies: economics, education, healthcare, and the like.
Technology raises many minor issues that affect lots of people, often for the worse, but few are going to care about those issues more than their child's education or putting food on plates.
Meanwhile, the tech firms getting insanely rich off these kinds of measures have small armies of lobbyists "advising" the technologically naive political classes on what they should be doing, backed by effectively unlimited war chests.
Until we have political systems that aren't dominated by rare elections decided by very few issues, this will unfortunately continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If the (ostensible) purpose of laws is to keep people/corporations in check, and our representatives make the laws, then the answer to your question, it seems to me, would be political activism, would it not?
There are reasonably well organised political advocacy groups around privacy, "digital rights", and so on. The trouble is, most of our elections are decided on a very small number of very high profile and high impact policies: economics, education, healthcare, and the like. Technology raises many minor issues that affect lots of people, often for the worse, but few are going to care about those issues more than their…