Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law would you propose? I think the hard part is "Instagram and TikTok remain free-with-ads."
Good riddance to everything supported by ads. I genuinely wonder if people would wind up spending less money if they had to pay for services than if they get exposed to ads that lead them to buy more things. But either way, once ads and "free with ads" are gone, there's much more room for other competitors.
Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
481–490 of 517 posts
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will classify the data as necessary for business purposes and collect it under a different name. Laws are powerful enough to stop that. > wiretaps I said 99%, not 100%. > any third party in range of the WiFi network can likely do the same thing passively But they won't do it in bulk without a lot of motivation (like profit).
When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. Only the people doing it would know. That’s the reality of why it is done now. That there is a market for it should never have been allowed but the capability is necessary to troubleshoot the network. I guess it seems silly to say this is even a legal issue. They shouldn’t do a lot of things, but they are going to be legally compelled to do th…
That ... might or might not be an issue, but it's not _this_ issue, ie the one we were originally talking about here.
A targeted order to wiretap (or otherwise spy on) a specific person or entity is entirely different from widespread data collection, retention, and sale for whatever corporate purpose. With widespread collection the data is then sitting there in a data lake waiting to be subpoenaed by law enforcement at their leisure for any arbitrary reason they happen to think up potentially years in the future.
> they are going to be legally compelled to do them, so the network structure’s form follows that function
You can't be compelled to hand over that which you do not have. Neither can you be compelled to modify your product in a particular manner absent market wide legislation; see FBI v Apple if you doubt that.
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ …after you dismiss the cookie banner, of course. I add this not only as a quip but to highlight that even a gdpr explainer website which you’d expect isn’t doing the evil thing of tracking users, has interpreted the relevant laws such that it finds it necessary to promt the user in order to simply explain the gdpr and epd/epr…
The way I read this proves you wrong: > Cookie compliance [heading] > To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. (emphasis not mine, but would have added it)
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. Only the people doing it would know. That’s the reality of why it is done now. That there is a market for it should never have been allowed but the capability is necessary to troubleshoot the network. I guess it seems silly to say this is even a legal issue. They shouldn’t do a lot of things, but they are going to be legally compelled to do th…
> When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. That ... might or might not be an issue, but it's not _this_ issue, ie the one we were originally talking about here. A targeted order to wiretap (or otherwise spy on) a specific person or entity is entirely different from widespread data collection, retention, and sale for whatever corporate purpose. With widespread collection the data is t…
I do see what you mean, but they are differences of degree, not kind. It could be considered a best practice to minimize PII etc, but even other groups don’t do any better. Signal still uses phone numbers.
> > they are going to be legally compelled to do them, so the network structure’s form follows that function
> You can't be compelled to hand over that which you do not have. Neither can you be compelled to modify your product in a particular manner absent market wide legislation; see FBI v Apple if you doubt that.
I agree. However, Apple is also confident enough in their legal team, reasoning, funding, and likely legal outcomes that they will flout NSLs in America, and yet they will cave to UK in that they disabled Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (in UK) which means that iCloud files aren’t really E2EE if the government can just say that you can’t do that anymore. Not your keys, not your files and the security and privacy of said effects thereof.
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disconnect and ground the antenna and supply your own equipment?
I thought we were talking about a solution that the tech industry could implement and deploy en masse to users, because it’s just, like TLS and browser standards. That’s usually what is being discussed when these give everyone privacy topics come up. The people that care enough to ground their antenna are already using their own hardware. And the ISP will deter hardware modification by charging you for damaged leased…
Only with cash.
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but you can replace that with your own unit they don't have control over.
…and most people don’t. it’s an additional expense, additional work, and frankly not worth the headache for like 80%+ of users. I used to work in this space, and have first-hand knowledge about the prevalence of third party modems with a sample set of over 100k people. What’s your experience?
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
> do their job of representing the people rather than a handful of corporations There is no incentive to represent the civically disengaged. Particularly on niche issues like privacy. > We have no people with any moral compass in charge No system works if reliant on wishing up on a star that people were better. We have a lot of problems with our republic's design. None of them can address problems people don't care t…
> There is no incentive to represent the civically disengaged You're repeatedly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issue. The tl'dr is that Bezos' civic engagement weighs more than my civic engagement, more than a million of me even. This is one easy way to take the casual and overly general "you're civically disengaged" victim blaming off the table. Your elected representatives already know your interests, they…
https://theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-lobby...
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The law requires consent before using a cookie to store even a mundane option that was just directly modified by a user Nope. That's exactly why the evil cookie modals are not on the GDPR but only on the sites that want to track you and now need to ask you for your consent before doing so. That's usually exactly where good faith GDPR detractors are wrong, and that's what needs to be repeated again and again in thos…
You're correct that the GDPR specifically doesn't require this, but you're incorrect that "the law" doesn't—the 2004 EU ePrivacy Directive requires affirmative consent for all cookies, and it's being enforced much more strictly now in a post-GDPR world
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I read this proves you wrong: > Cookie compliance [heading] > To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. (emphasis not mine, but would have added it)
A language preference cookie is colloquially considered a preferences cookie, which is included in the except strictly necessary cookies.
A language preference cookie is not tracking.
Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The law requires consent before using a cookie to store even a mundane option that was just directly modified by a user. If your are referring to GDPR this is wrong. GDPR does not require consent for strictly necessary cookies. >Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold…
No I am referring to the EPD as I state in my comment, an acronym you should know since it’s defined in the explainer you link. As someone who has experience in this area, it’s not as simple as “just use the Accept-Language header it will be fine”. In any event, that’s besides then point. There are non-tracking cookies that get swept up in the EPD’s consent requirements. This causes way more popups than needed to add…
Still not sure where you and nightpool got this.