161–170 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Android and iOS are equivalent How can you write this after using both for like 10 minutes
iOS is a bit better, but honestly I think Android is just fine. I don’t see a big difference for most users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't Sounds like a good reason not to trust them. That said, it's not impossible to be reasonably assured that our data isn't being stored or used inappropriately, but that would require strong regulations which protected that data and a proven record of companies being caught and facing meaningful consequences for violating those regulations. It'd be nice if we had strong whistleblower protections as well. Ma…
> They have collected the test scores and grades of a lot of children through schools [...]. Citation needed. That would be in violation of the EU gdpr.
I can't promise that this happens in the EU, but it does in the US. Literally any child using a chromebook for school, as many are forced to by the schools, is forced to hand massive amounts of personal data to Google. Google may claim that they aren't keeping the data they are collecting, but they are collecting it and their services wouldn't function if they were not. This leads to some weird situations where a student who violates youtube's ToS can be locked out of the chromebook their school requires them to use to take tests and do homework (see https://old.reddit.com/r/k12sysadmin/comments/109cn00/suspen...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have an huge reputational risk I don't understand this argument. The most hated corporations in the US are all insanely rich and are at zero risk of going out of business even though most people hate them. After a certain point, corporations have basically nothing to fear from bad press. Google specifically has been found guilty of violating the law and people's privacy on numerous occasions already, including…
> whistleblowers are extremely rare. The few protections they have are being reduced all the time, and the risk is huge. Very few people will give up their career and risk becoming unhirable. We get the new pixels leaked every year for a decade. We get all sorts of leaks from Google very regularly in the news. If you work for a tech company and you have juicy new stories you can quite literally call a journalist and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's handling of this "change" was disastrous. I also value my timeline data and would hate to lose it. Google's solution was to force me to acknowledge some weird dialog that had minimal information about the impact. This is beyond asinine and I don't know how they can say they gave me any informed consent on the change - the whole thing is bizarre. I took a screenshot, and left it running for a few hours while…
it is outrageous invasion of privacy to keep constant tracking records of all locations over long periods of time, yet a user is outraged when they "lose" access to it?! Does a faith in personal access to data stores override any and all opaque backend practices of a massive company? like a cargo cult -- the company will return all of our precious data and we will be made whole
Instead of ranting about privacy maybe you should work on privacy enabling tech solutions to user-needs that clearly some people have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm just a renter; I get no say in the matter. Surely you evaluated alternative apartments before deciding to rent at the one you are currently in, right?
You provably missed the “is about to replace” part, not sure the OP was aware of what would be coming when he moved in.
They're not forced into anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s neither here nor there. The question is do you reasonably expect that this information is private. The answer is obviously “no,” because you’re handing the information over to a company with hundreds of thousands of employees. Whether you think you have a good reason to give up your privacy like that or not is neither here nor there.
Wait, so if I get medical care a company with United Health, a company with hundreds of thousands of employees, I have no expectation of privacy just because of their headcount?
Other people’s records concerning you plainly aren’t “[your] … papers.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s neither here nor there. The question is do you reasonably expect that this information is private. The answer is obviously “no,” because you’re handing the information over to a company with hundreds of thousands of employees. Whether you think you have a good reason to give up your privacy like that or not is neither here nor there.
This is a terrible take. I expect that any such company has more than sufficient wherewithal to enforce good privacy practices on my data, which belongs to me. If they do some calculations on my behalf using that data on their servers, the data still belongs to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a time, not that long ago, when there was no such thing as Google Location History storing the geographical movements of all Android users by default. Now, in your mind, go back to that time period, and lets say there are elections coming up in your country. Are you there yet? OK. Now, the manifesto of the candidacies in the upcoming elections is proposing that the location history data of every citizen in…
I still don't understand this perspective, other than slippery slope povs ('what if the Nazis take over?'). My bank knows everywhere I go (if I spend money). The main mobile phone companies know everywhere I go (in real time, and who with [if they have a phone]). Shops and supermarkets track you around the building by Bluetooth, et cetera. So, what's the problem if the police get access to this data to solve heinous…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't understand this perspective, other than slippery slope povs ('what if the Nazis take over?'). My bank knows everywhere I go (if I spend money). The main mobile phone companies know everywhere I go (in real time, and who with [if they have a phone]). Shops and supermarkets track you around the building by Bluetooth, et cetera. So, what's the problem if the police get access to this data to solve heinous…
I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important for the rest of us then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so if I get medical care a company with United Health, a company with hundreds of thousands of employees, I have no expectation of privacy just because of their headcount?
“Expectation of privacy” isn’t in the constitution. The 4th amendment says: “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Other people’s records concerning you plainly aren’t “[your] … papers.”