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

There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 263 posts

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#111

Post by 34679 »

MBCook wrote: post #72
01100011 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think I prefer devices which offload the UI to a smartphone. I was thinking of something like this years ago where you could use something like Bluetooth to push a web UI so devices like thermostats would no longer need to have a shitty UI for things like programming schedules. Unfortunately in this case the greed of the manufacturer hoping to monetize their UI has ruined an otherwise decent idea(althoug…

What happens in two or three years when they decide to stop updating the app and it no longer works on your phone? They couldn’t bother since there was no recurring revenue stream so you just have to buy a new dishwasher?

I believe the other person was talking about having the devices serve up webpage UIs, so you wouldn't need their specific app, just a browser. A lot of makers do this with their 3D printers and CNC machines, as it avoids the cost and hassle of installing a display on the machine.

Two of the more popular ones, for those interested:

octoprint.org

cnc.js.org

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#112

Post by franciscop »

bluehex wrote: post #78

> Indeed, almost all of Metropolis’ information gathering was justified by the spokesperson as being necessary for improving the company’s service. Is it just me or is this poor writing? I thought something had to be true in order to be justified. They "attempted to justify" or "rationalized" but they didn't "justify". I know this is nit-picky of me but this is a newspaper with professional writers and editors. Maybe…

"Justified by the spokesperson" = those are the reasons the spokesperson gave/think are true. Dictionary tells me a definition of "justify" is "be a good reason for".

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#113

Post by Spooky23 »

yumraj wrote: post #20

DMV, and other gov services, in CA, as well as it seems other states, is now fully integrated with ID.me, which to me does not inspire trust. They even run a shop, https://shop.id.me/ , with store discounts and so on. So, to give all the info to such an entity is risky as hell. So, recently when I had to do something with DMV I just decided to go a little early and use the kiosks they have inside rather than use the…

They do this because most non-law enforcement data cannot be queried through inter-government links. There’s a consortium called AAMVA that coordinates regulations between states. States provide a feed of license and registration data to insurance companies and others, then they spend far more to buy that data back.

The issue is that many validations leave the state for things like commercial carrier endorsements, etc.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#114

Post by Spooky23 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #110
akira2501 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California there's just a simple form and a fee to retrieve information from the DMV. If anyone does this to lookup your information, you will be notified by the state. I highly recommend getting a PO Box or a PMB and using that as your primary address on your drivers license, for this exact reason. In this case, you are required to also give the address you physically live at, but this information is not eligible…

If you own property, does that really protect you? Land records are public, and you can just use a website like http://searchpeoplefree.com/

Usually providing a fake primary address is a no-no anyway. I think it is a misdemeanor in my state.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#115

Post by systemvoltage »

jonas21 wrote: post #92

The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls". I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a more than 7,000-word privacy policy with the exact same pitfalls. - Collecting IP address: check - Collecting geo-location and device identifiers: check - Cross-device tracking: check - Tracking referring and exit URLs: check - Third-party cookies for ad targeting…

What does LA Times have to do with parking app? Why this misdirection?

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#117

Post by dheera »

rPlayer6554 wrote: post #11

> But let’s clear up something right away: Trader Joe’s says it has nothing to do with this. > “This isn’t a TJ’s thing,” said Tara Miller, a Trader Joe’s spokesperson. “It’s being implemented by the landlord I feel like the headline is misleading and shouldn't mention Trader Joe's if it isn't Trader Joe's direct fault.

Trader Joe's should fight with their landlord about it. That should be part of their customer service, to do those things for me, in return for me shopping at their stores and giving them revenue.

Just say you don't own a mobile phone and that you're willing to pay parking with cash or credit card.

The ball is now in their court to figure out what to do.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#118

Post by geofft »

jonas21 wrote: post #92

The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls". I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a more than 7,000-word privacy policy with the exact same pitfalls. - Collecting IP address: check - Collecting geo-location and device identifiers: check - Cross-device tracking: check - Tracking referring and exit URLs: check - Third-party cookies for ad targeting…

Can you suggest a news outlet without an unacceptable privacy policy that the author could go work at instead?

(Any plausible definition of "news outlet" works here, as long as it pays the author and reaches an audience.)

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#119

Post by systemvoltage »

yumraj wrote: post #20

DMV, and other gov services, in CA, as well as it seems other states, is now fully integrated with ID.me, which to me does not inspire trust. They even run a shop, https://shop.id.me/ , with store discounts and so on. So, to give all the info to such an entity is risky as hell. So, recently when I had to do something with DMV I just decided to go a little early and use the kiosks they have inside rather than use the…

I predict in 2025 - California will be the first totalitarian state enabled by Big Tech fusing with the State of CA. Basically exactly like the CCP + Tencent. Total unaminity in the population, political dissent is instantly castrated by media or Big Tech's social apps and search engines, 90% people will be voting in unison for the same candidate. 10% left are constantly being squeezed out, until we have basically North Korea.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#120

Post by jonas21 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #115
jonas21 wrote: post #92

The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls". I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a more than 7,000-word privacy policy with the exact same pitfalls. - Collecting IP address: check - Collecting geo-location and device identifiers: check - Cross-device tracking: check - Tracking referring and exit URLs: check - Third-party cookies for ad targeting…

What does LA Times have to do with parking app? Why this misdirection?

This is an article in the LA Times by a columnist who works for the LA Times.
Post reply on HN