281–286 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea, but I see no reason to shield the management that demanded this of the rank and file. Accountability should go all the way up the chain.
Yes, but it should include everyone involved, from top to bottom. We won't get those data theft misfeatures if engineers refused to work on them out of personal liability.
This system was designed and implemented by engineers who committed code in a source control system with their name attached, and the changes were requested by product managers in tickets in the ticketing system with their name attached. Those engineers and product managers should be personally liable for an equivalent % of their annual salary as Facebook is liable for a % of its annual revenue.
I dont think we should fine any of the people that worked on it. In the end the decision makers are the ones being paid to be responsible so they should be held responsible. However, there is a conversation to be had about engineers writing code that they fully know is illegal. Imo there should be a punishment for staying complicit and not reporting it to the authorities. Like that time Volkswagen components detected…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simpler than that: AI co-opted the hype machine and the buzzword gurus, and therefore the investor money.
Pretty much, and it's a shame because AR has so much potential. Our company has started using a AR product in our quality control. It really doesn't take using it for long to realize the potential, being able to overlay a CAD model over the physical finished project is incredible and offers a lot of time savings. Unfortunately the most advanced AR device on the market is over 5 years old so you can really feel the so…
Making VR a viable new entertainment channel promises selling a headset to 85% of the broad consumer market, then trying to own the content shops for it in perpetuity. It's the trillion-dollar new market that the investor class clamours for.
Making AR work is a much shallower lift -- you usually aren't dealing with the same issues of nausea, massive movement tracking and room management, and high performance immersivity. But you're going to only sell it as largely islandified turnkey systems-- each customer is going to buy a few hundred or thousand headsets and a bespoke software package for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is another can of worms hidden in plain sight right here, I feel like. From the article: You’re not affected if (and only if) You access Facebook and Instagram via the web, without having the apps installed on your phone This is only what's observably true of a particular app under the hood from straightforwardly jacking into it with Frida or performing any other deeper analysis. What's to say Meta/Google/Other…
Indeed. I read elsewhere that some Android manufacturers even ship with Facebook bits that don't show up in the app listing and cannot be removed. We desperately need a viable open hardware / open source OS competitor in the phone space.
It already exists. Sent from my Librem 5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is still perfectly legal and allowed. every app can scan your apps and recently opened ones "for security". same for your contacts. whatsapp (only meta product i need to touch in our fleet) will do both at very fast intervals, and upload a contact list diff if it detect changes. the whole issue here was that meta bypassed the user matching on the web without paying google "cookie matching" price
It's so obnoxious that whatsapp refuses to function if you don't let it scan your contacts. I genuinely think that should be illegal.
I agree it should be prevented. It seems so absurd and is clearly not necessary. Android should have an option to let it see an empty/phony address book, so it can't tell that you've blocked it.