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

We accepted surveillance as default

vivianvoss.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#151

Post by alt227 »

frumplestlatz wrote: post #61
alt227 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its amusing that Apple itself is one of the biggest ad companies that exists, fed entirely from their own users private data. Yet by simply pointing the finger away from themselves and helping their customers block other ad companies efforts, they seem to have gained complete trust of all their users and most dont even know how much Apple are making in ad revenue from their own data. https://appleinsider.com/articles…

The article you cite refutes your claim, explicitly bringing up the lack of access to user data. I frankly don’t care if the App Store has advertisements. I would care if my data is (1) available to Apple to read by virtue of not being e2e encrypted, and (2) used to train models and target those advertisements.

I dont mean to be rude but you obviously dont do much research about companies you seem to care a lot about.

Apple have been caught time and time again undermining their users security and privacy, including syphoning off user data to government agencies etc.

The sibling post cites enough reading to be getting on with, but heres a few more of my favourites for good measure:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/11/12/apple-getting-sue...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-con...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/governments...

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#155

Post by _doctor_love »

godelski wrote: post #123
_doctor_love wrote: post #18

This is all well and good but as long as advertising is how folks make money on the web, the surveillance state will persist.

> but as long as advertising is how folks make money on the web Then we make this impossible. This isn't a forum of marketers, this is a forum of engineers and makers. So... how do we make the next version of the internet fully private and prevent it from becoming overly centralized. How do we prevent companies like Google dictating the design with their browser dominance (chromium, not just Chrome)? We definitely ha…

> Then we make this impossible.

It doesn't have to be. Building a thing is a red herring, if building things solved problems, all problems out to be solved by now. The natural inclination of the builder and maker is to create a thing to solve problems.

The reason the marketers tend to win is that they're closer to life and how it tends to actually work. People who think like engineers are in a significant minority. Real life is based on vibes.

So how do you defeat them? You pass laws and then you enforce them. And then you invest in education around the law and society so that the populace understands how the system works and how to participate in it.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#156

Post by colesantiago »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #146
colesantiago wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have never sold anything, or participated with other people or groups that have sold anything online because you believe that they should not use the internet for profit?

this rhetoric is not compelling to me.

This is not rhetoric and dodging a yes / no question is not an answer.

You didn't deny it.

So I am assuming you sold something or participated with other people or groups that have sold something for profit on the internet.

> i manage to do so using money i make elsewhere

And the place you work at most likely has an internet presence (highly likely) to sell products and services?

You don't want your place of work to make money and not pay their server bills if they have an internet presence?

You're living in a fantasy land in 2026.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#157

Post by colesantiago »

qu4z-2 wrote: post #107
colesantiago wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do website owners pay for server costs if you think they shouldn't make money? Should everyone be in a loss when they run a website?

I think if everyone with a website made a small financial loss on it, the web would be immeasurably better.

How?

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#158

Post by colesantiago »

BrenBarn wrote: post #133
colesantiago wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that the website... stays online? Have you bought a domain before or anything online before?

For a website to stay online, it is not required that the website itself make money, let alone that it do so via ads. For instance if your website is directly selling an actual product, you can make money by selling that product. Or you can make money by having an actual job, and use that money to pay for the website.

And if the place you work at has a website and internet presence which they get traffic for and use for inbound customers?

If they can't pay you because they don't have customers, how will you (in a job) pay for the website to stay online without a job without using your savings?

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#159

Post by inventor7777 »

fsflover wrote: post #141
inventor7777 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is very true. Unfortunately, without a true non-Apple or non-Google OS, the ATT toggle is likely about as good as you can get. And it does stop the apps themselves getting raw access to your data, which is not something to sniff at.

A true non-Apple and non-Google OS already exists. Sent from my Librem 5 running GNU/Linux.

Wow, that is neat! I had never heard of that before. However, they still have a long way to go to even equal the capabilities of normal phones made by huge companies for a typical consumer. Whether that is normal app support or even just simple stuff like camera quality.

Although...that was likely never the main goal for that phone anyway.

Post reply on HN