271–280 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure you can pay with cash. But you better turn off your phone because they also track you with your WiFi MAC address when you walk into stores.
That's where IOS did much better.
Another thing to worry about is whether iPhone really turns off the wifi radio when it is greeted out from the menu.. I remember a setting change somewhere around ios10/11..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's where IOS did much better.
Does iOS randomize MAC addresses when looking for public wifi networks? Another thing to worry about is whether iPhone really turns off the wifi radio when it is greeted out from the menu.. I remember a setting change somewhere around ios10/11..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree 100% on the first point. On the original question: evidence seems to say yes.
How can you agree that "the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think" and at the same time think we're easily manipulated?
Heck, very very few advertising campaigns involve telling the user to buy a product or service. Most focus more on creating a new need/want, or in repeated exposure to make the advertised good seem “normal”.
Now the tricky thing is that manipulation requires intent, which is very hard to prove. Hanlon’s razor would have us believing that in most cases, shady things happen because people are dumb, not malicious. So for my part I personally believe that the media got addicted to the ratings and felt internal pressure to provide equal coverage even when the scandals were quite unequal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you unGoogle? They have my phone, my email. Amazon now follows my grocery shopping at Whole Foods. I doubt Visa and Amex are far behind, it's free money for them so there is no point in canning Master. What a disaster! Ad supported Internet is the root of the problem.
Did you read Chaos Monkeys? What about Dragnet Nation? Both (of which are not new) peek behind the curtains you're concerned about. Both are recommended, and freightening. It's only going to get worse. https://www.antoniogarciamartinez.com/chaos-monkeys/ http://juliaangwin.com/dragnet-nation-available-now/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what feels shady about ProtonMail?
I believe a competitor of theirs has been actively trying to spread distrust of them on HN. I don't remember the details well, but I think they allege that ProtonVPN and ProtonMail aren't independent from each other when they claim they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents point is valid in so far as that selling really is the wrong term for it. If Google sold the data, someone else would have it. That would not only be awful from a privacy perspective, it would be desasterous for business. It's primarily a case for precise language and not something to ridicule.
Like you mention one of the most obvious reasons that Google does not sell user information is because it would not make good business sense. These immense profiles they're building on everybody are part of their 'secret sauce' and simply selling those would not be good for business. When they're choosing to not engage in behavior that no company in their shoes would engage in, it's hardly praise worthy and I think i…
On the contrary, it is a good business model and Google does it. They sell ad targeting, and targeting ads is based on accessing personal user data and making its results available to anybody who wants to pay. With each targeting of an ad the ad buyers can track more profiled users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read Chaos Monkeys? What about Dragnet Nation? Both (of which are not new) peek behind the curtains you're concerned about. Both are recommended, and freightening. It's only going to get worse. https://www.antoniogarciamartinez.com/chaos-monkeys/ http://juliaangwin.com/dragnet-nation-available-now/
Borrowed Chaos Monkeys from the library based on this post. Thanks for the recommendation, it's very engaging so far.
And yes, his style is very entertaining. I hope you enjoy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like you mention one of the most obvious reasons that Google does not sell user information is because it would not make good business sense. These immense profiles they're building on everybody are part of their 'secret sauce' and simply selling those would not be good for business. When they're choosing to not engage in behavior that no company in their shoes would engage in, it's hardly praise worthy and I think i…
> the most obvious reasons that Google does not sell user information is because it would not make good business sense On the contrary, it is a good business model and Google does it. They sell ad targeting, and targeting ads is based on accessing personal user data and making its results available to anybody who wants to pay. With each targeting of an ad the ad buyers can track more profiled users.
"selling your user data" implies that someone else has access. They don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be extremely ethical about your factory farm but it's still a factory farm. Google is in the business of utilising your data in the interest of advertising. No matter how you sugar coat it, the core of the business is tracking people and exploiting that data. Are they doing their best to be careful and ethical? It sure seems like it, but that doesn't solve the issue. The free services they and many tech compa…
Google is not in the business of selling your data. Google does not sell your data. It’s pretty clear in their privacy policy: https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html Disclaimer: I work at Google.
Your assertion and supporting link are nothing more than semantics though. But if those semantics make you personally feel better then fine. But I think there's very few people who think that such a semantic distinction matters.