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

221–230 of 263 posts

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

#221

Post by jonas21 »

geofft wrote: post #118
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.)

I can't off the top of my head. Can you? I mean it's almost as if targeted advertising were a remarkably effective way to fund things that people want but don't like paying for, whether it's journalism or parking.

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

#222

Post by davchana »

akira2501 wrote: post #88
inetknght wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is now fully integrated with ID.me Getting a license or vehicle registration information is sold in certain states. [0]: https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/02/20/texas-dmv-selling-driver...

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…

> simple form

Just to add to above comment, if the record is not for self (i.e. self owned car or own driving license), then it can be fetched only for "permissible use". The bullet points are:

Motor vehicle or driver safety and theft

Legitimate business

Civil criminal administrative or arbitral processing

Insurance purposes

Employer of commercial drivers

All other uses permitted by CA law.

The pdf form at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/request-for-record-inform... in section 4 has more details.

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

#223

Post by JohnFen »

01100011 wrote: post #30
unicornporn wrote: post #13

Oh, great timing. Just ended a conversation with some friends who had bought a dishwasher. The display for these new machines had been removed, so the only way to tell when the machine was really finished was to... Guess what? Download an app! I suppose I don't need to tell you all the permissions it asked for...

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…

> Personally I think I prefer devices which offload the UI to a smartphone.

In concept, I agree. As you mention, in practice, the apps used nearly always collect data about you and the use of your devices to send back to the mothership.

That makes their use unacceptable to me. Requiring the use of a smartphone app is a showstopper.

But even if that wasn't the case, it seems odd to require me to provide a device of my own in order to use a machine. There are a lot of people who don't own a smartphone at all (and I will join their ranks once my current one dies). Why exclude that part of the market?

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

#224

Post by JohnFen »

nicbou wrote: post #150
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…

I'm not a big fan of this. If I want to see a device's status, I look at it. Or in the case of certain devices, I listen for a specific hum. This requires no setup and no maintenance. I can check the status of my washing machine, as can anyone else in the house.

I agree. Having to use a computer to check the status of a machine is very inconvenient compared to just looking at the machine.

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

#225

Post by JohnFen »

akudha wrote: post #44
the_snooze wrote: post #16

I hate tech like this. It ostensibly offers some minor convenience for the end-user, but it's really just a big data grab for whatever company implemented it. A few years ago, I went to a local Shake Shack and found they replaced their cashiers with kiosks. But placing an order requires me to give them my phone number, supposedly so they can text me when my order was ready. This should have been a very simple transac…

Years ago, I was at a huge electronics store in NYC. I wanted to buy something small, maybe 30 bucks worth. The cashier won’t bill unless I gave him my phone number. I asked him why he needs my number, he said “in case you return the item”. I told him he needs the receipt, not phone number, while returning items. He didn’t budge. I didn’t want to cause a scene, so I left without purchasing. It is not just collecting…

When I am faced with this sort of nonsense, and if I really need to make the purchase, I just make up whatever data they're asking for.

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

#226

Post by JohnFen »

oceanghost wrote: post #149
akudha wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago, I was at a huge electronics store in NYC. I wanted to buy something small, maybe 30 bucks worth. The cashier won’t bill unless I gave him my phone number. I asked him why he needs my number, he said “in case you return the item”. I told him he needs the receipt, not phone number, while returning items. He didn’t budge. I didn’t want to cause a scene, so I left without purchasing. It is not just collecting…

Cosmo Kramer: They're trying to screw with your head. Jerry: Now why would a junior high school want to screw with my head? Cosmo Kramer: Why does Radio Shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries? I don't know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfaYKoQxzQ

I remember when they asked for your address as well. But, at every one I ever set foot in, they also took "no" for an answer.

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

#227

Post by yumraj »

emptyparadise wrote: post #209
yumraj wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is a certain % of HN readers and so on will but those, even pay a premium. But the rest of the population just wants smart appliances and Nest or other smart thermostats, Ring/other key hole cameras, Alexa/other smart devices and Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/… So, unfortunately it’s not going to be a very successful business because the dumb masses have been brainwashed into accepting these smart devices. I…

Do people really want this stuff or are they forced to use it? When your options are either buying this IoT thing or not buying the thing at all, what can you do?

I don't think anyone is forced to buy an Amazon Eco speaker, a Google Home or an Apple Homepod. Given that people are buying these tells me that some people want it and are willing to sacrifice privacy.

Similarly, a lot of people are willing to buy a Tesla despite all the monitoring that that car does. And so on.

So, it is obvious that a certain percentage of people don't care about privacy. Now, what is dangerous is that a substantial percentage of these people are so called tech-savvy and even people in the tech industry. So, if they don't care despite them being able to understand the privacy issues, the general population which looks at these people for buying advice is certainly not going to care.

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

#228

Post by TheCoelacanth »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #178
Ma8ee wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of the rent is unavoidable. You can't buy anything in the store without walking in the store and buy goods that has been stored in the store The cost of parking is avoidable. You don't have to drive and park to buy goods in the store. Why should I that walk or bicycle to the store sponsor you driving and parking by paying higher prices so you can park for free?

I already address this in my earlier comment, there is an obvious distinction between urban and rural locations. If you're not paying more for your shopping in an urban location then this is almost always going to be because the costs are amortized over all the stores in a chain. There is no free lunch, someone ends up paying more than they should somewhere.

Prices usually are higher in urban locations. They also make up for the higher costs to some extent through higher volume.

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

#229

Post by JohnFen »

mcculley wrote: post #70

This kind of market is why I am amused when people are concerned about the government spying on them. The government does not need spies. It just buys the data on the open market.

Absolutely correct. It's still spying, though. It's just spying that's been outsourced and made available to everyone that can cut a check.

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

#230

Post by jdeibele »

Waterluvian wrote: post #15
unicornporn wrote: post #13

Oh, great timing. Just ended a conversation with some friends who had bought a dishwasher. The display for these new machines had been removed, so the only way to tell when the machine was really finished was to... Guess what? Download an app! I suppose I don't need to tell you all the permissions it asked for...

Someone can make an absolute killing by creating an entire brand of “dumb” appliances that Just Work. Make them sensible quality, modern, entirely offline.

My brother-in-law bought a Speed Queen washer because it has relatively primitive technology. As I understand it, they're aimed more at commercial users or users who want to fix their machines themselves. https://speedqueen.com/
Post reply on HN