101–110 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And even the good actors This sounds like snark, but I don't intend it that way. I genuinely want to know. Who are the good actors? I really can't see any.
I naively consider(ed?) Google a good actor. I still kind of buy that they want to be at least. I'm sure others think differently though and I'm definitely not going to defend them. (Android, Dragonfly)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You assume they put an opt-out link on the button and not have it buried in either the Terms of Service, a customer request or an entirely separate EULA.
Just mail a letter to this PO box and we'll have your information removed in 8-12 weeks with no way to verify we did it!
> “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
> “That’s the display department.”
> “With a flashlight.”
> “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
> “So had the stairs.”
> “But look, you found the TOS and EULA, didn’t you?”
> “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
I can predict the "Dark Patterns" right now. Giant Accept button and 6pt font opt-out link.
I can predict the "Dark Patterns" right now. Giant Accept button and 6pt font opt-out link.
Apparently it's opt-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your consent should be considered an outlier and should not be used to hinder my lack thereof.
I don't think their consent is an outlier. Most users are somewhat ok with selling their data in exchange for free services. I mean I use Gmail, Google Search, Google Maps, etc. etc. knowing they hoover up my data because, in the end, I value the ability to have these services for free more than I care about Google's ability to collect useful statistics about me/its users.
I couldn't find links to the actual bill anywhere so I tracked it down: http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=2800... The summary: "This bill prohibits a provider of broadband Internet access service from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to customer personal information unless the customer expressly consents to that use, disclosure, sale or access. The bill provides other exceptions u…
It's all political marketing to make consumers continue to feel good about being screwed over more and more by corporate policy following demands of the very wealthy.
Could you please stop posting ideological flamebait to HN? It breaks the guidelines and is not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you create and pass toothless legislation that can be nullified by agreeing to a private contractual agreement that overrules said legislation, it doesn't serve anything but a facade to mislead those it purports to protect. Intent is of course always questionable and unknowable but if the trend is passing legislation with deceitful naming conventions and summaries that confuse the average citizen, it's shameful.
There are cases where private contracts have been ruled invalid when they step deeply on constitutional rights, but even those are typically the exception, not the rule, and require time, money, and risk to pursue litigation on behalf of the individual which not all are inclined or even capable of pursing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should ban collecting tons if info about people, for all companies, period. We won't, because banks and CC companies are very into doing that and the politicians love them, but we should.
No. Because many businesses rely on data available. FAANG would be out of business then.
This isn't true of Facebook. This isn't true of Apple. This isn't true of Amazon. This isn't true of Netflix. Google... likely they would be wounded, but it definitely wouldn't make them go out of businesses.