Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#271

Post by aphextim » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #160

tboyd47 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean how there are somehow always commenters in every topic ready to leap to the defense of China and major US tech companies?

I'm fairly confident China (and for that matter Russia, but we all knew that) do this. As for tech companies, I would honestly mark a lot of that down to fanboyism. Not that I'd be entirely surprised, but I somewhat doubt that Elon Musk, in particular, is actually paying all of those people. And Tesla seems to have the most defensive supporters on the internet. People talk about Facebook and Google for their privacy…

Israel too.

Link from them doing this in 2010. I highly doubt it has slowed down or stopped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LofScCiJT4c

The question still remains, are corporations doing this actively/knowingly or is it only governments that are doing the shilling.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#272

Post by ummonk » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

juanbyrge wrote: post #137

Kind of a ratty move by Brave to leverage all of Google's tech in their browser (blink, v8, etc..) while simultaneously suing them as a PR tactic.

Google didn't have to open source it. They open sourced it knowing it would encourage adoption.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#273

Post by paganel » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #202

philwelch wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly confident China (and for that matter Russia, but we all knew that) do this. As for tech companies, I would honestly mark a lot of that down to fanboyism. Not that I'd be entirely surprised, but I somewhat doubt that Elon Musk, in particular, is actually paying all of those people. And Tesla seems to have the most defensive supporters on the internet. People talk about Facebook and Google for their privacy…

China or Russia don't need to pay shills in all case, there are always nationalists to do it for free. In other cases, it's Stockholm Syndrome. As for paid shills, there is an entire sub-industry of PR called "Reputation management" devoted to this.

I used to read a Financial Times article from either 2011 or 2012 (can’t remember exactly) where some Israeli military person was confirming that Israel was using what we now call shill accounts (he used a different, more pleasantly sounding term). If Israel does it I’m pretty sure Russia and China do it, too.

(I don’t have a direct link to said FT article, just a photo I took of said military person’s quote which is somewhere on one of my computers)

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#274

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #130

docker_up wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Privacy violations and leaks should be punished with fines and jail time. Period. End of sentence. Just like execs have to personally sign for and are accountable for their financial statements, they should do the same thing with privacy. GDPR sets a very common leveling of the field so it's completely fair now.

"Privacy violation" is a huge, gigantic category of all kinds of things. One kind of privacy violation is completely different from another; some privacy violations are completely harmless, and some are actually directly harmful, and some in between. Giving jail time for any of these is like giving jail time for any kind of "offensive behavior". Maybe someone just didn't like what someone said and called it offensive…

> "Privacy violation" is a huge, gigantic category of all kinds of things.

This discussion is about intentional, systematic, large-scale violations of privacy by large corpotations. You pointing out (essentially) that sometimes your one neighbour tells your other neighbour how they heard this rumour about you is simply an attempt to derail the conversation, not a relevant argument.

> You don't get jail time just because someone claimed offense, you have to prove harm, and fit the punishment to the crime.

That's just nonsense. Talking away people's stuff without their consent is a crime. Noone has to prove any harm for you to be punished for theft. If the theft also harmed someone, they obviously can demand that you compensate them for their loss, but that is a completely separate issue.

Yes, the punishment has to fit the crime. And if you were the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation that made money by organizing the stealing of low-value goods from every person on the planet, that punishment presumably would be quite something in order to fit the crime.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#275

Post by topspin » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

ngngngng wrote: post #213

trpc wrote: post #200

Brave is certainly the most shameless tech company I've ever seen in my entire life. Shame on HN to repeatedly allow such a scummy company exploits its ranking algorithm again and again. This kind of systematic exploitation used to happen before with DuckDuckGo, but it seems that Brave took shamelessness to a whole new level.

Could you expound? Exploits it's ranking algorithm? What does that mean.

> What does that mean.

It doesn't mean anything. This 'trpc' account is the resident Brave hater; every HN story about Brave features trpc making stuff up or just impugning Brave as a scam.

    [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830663
    [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19980046
    [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19832464
    [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19615220

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#276

Post by ben_w » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #220

feanaro wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about systematic, deliberate, deceptive privacy violations in order to increase profits? That seems like a pretty distinct category from the cases you are concerned with.

> systematic, deliberate, deceptive I'll take your word for it, the evidence doesn't look clear cut to me, > privacy violations Again, who cares if it was just your shoe size? We should not send someone to jail for leaking who your favorite pop star is. Did it, or could it, do harm ? This is a nearly universal standard used to assess how someone is punished according to the law. > in order to increase profits Of cour…

> Again, who cares if it was just your shoe size? We should not send someone to jail for leaking who your favorite pop star is. Did it, or could it, do harm?

All personal information makes fraud and blackmail easier. Even the seemingly mundane.

I won’t go into details because the relevant law already exists.

This brings me to my second point:

> Of course it's to increase profits, you think they're doing it for fun? Did we stop living in a capitalist economy and nobody told me?

Even in a capitalist society, doing illegal things for money is generally considered worse than doing illegal things without the expectation of getting paid.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#277

Post by jhayward » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

navigatesol wrote: post #162

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

> Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. This is the lazy and ignorant method of dismissing other people's arguments. Shill or not, what does it matter if what they state are facts?

> This is the lazy and ignorant method of dismissing other people's arguments.

First, please observe the principle of charity when posting.

> Shill or not, what does it matter if what they state are facts?

Because it is entirely possible to tell large lies using small facts.

Because propaganda and disinformation are actual, real things and are very difficult to combat once unleashed in the commons.

Because the "let the marketplace of ideas figure it out" excuse to not police propaganda and disinformation attacks is hopelessly naive at best, and deliberately ineffective at worst.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#278

Post by PeterStuer » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

paul7986 wrote: post #152

Aunche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketing expert, but I doubt that the best way Google can think of to sway public opinion is to call people privacy nuts. Google employs over 100,000 people and even more people work at similar companies like Facebook or buy targeted ads. Many of these people browse Hackernews and get offended if others accuse their livelihoods of being evil.

I can attest to that as when you point of things like Google gets caught stealing IP from a MIT student they invited for an interview (a popular thread here on HN) it gets downvoted voraciously. Either its employees, hired guns and or something...

I have also had purely factual statement on companies downvoted in a way that defies any rational story.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#279

Post by hnarn » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #182

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my last job the traffic was filtered through a proxy due to FINRA regulations. I’d see Portuguese ads for diabetes medication and there were 2 Brazilian guys in the office. Seemed like a major HIPAA violation to me.

HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. If Alice tells her coworker Bob that she had diabetes, it's not a HIPAA violation for Bob to tell Charlie.

> HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information.

Maybe not, but GDPR sure is.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#280

Post by endorphone » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

coolsunglasses wrote: post #259

endorphone wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer? Because this take is quite remarkable, especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent, coupled with a lot of supporting but not entirely factual claims to justify that position. I feel like the same people who were jeering at the victim just marched over to sainting her and demonizing McDonalds. The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has…

The standard temperate you brew coffee at is 200F, less if at high altitude. McDonalds coffee is served at 180-190F and brewed at something higher than 200F and lower than boiling. Typical coffee serving temperature is 155-175F. I'm considered unusual among my friends for being able to sip 170-180F coffee. 190F is just way too hot.

205F is the ideal brewing temperature, and is just a snip under boiling (212F). Serving temperature is entirely a function of waiting time from brewing, and is commonly between 165-185 everywhere. For take out shops it tends to be higher as there is the expectation that users have a delay before they drink it, and that many add cream or milk.

Again, if you buy a coffee at McDonalds today, or at Starbucks, or virtually anywhere else, you'll get a coffee that can be as hot or hotter. It's a hot beverage.