61–70 of 103 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does actually clear that data. It persists in some backups for awhile but it’s never used again.
Do they clear it without using it and if they do use it to they clear the results of that use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft turning DNT on for all Windows users automatically pretty much killed the movement's momentum. While privacy as the default has strong arguments going for it, as a practical matter since DNT was supposed to be an intentional signal Microsoft's mass-flagging effectively drowned the signal in noise. And those who didn't know better lauded them for it, too.
Even if Microsoft turned DNT on by default Google/Facebook should still respect it. They could ask users to turn it off in the same way they bug people to install their software. Alternatively they could work on business models that don’t rely on collecting massive amounts of personal data about people who don’t want them to do that. E.g. Basic Attention Tokens and others.
I think that a lot of Google and Facebook’s creepyness would go away if they’d just voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header. There’s no techical reason why don’t, just business ethics. That header is someone explicitly telling Google “I don’t want you to do this” _before_ collection happens and Google’s response is “we don’t give a shit what you want” and doing it anyway. The current model where you have to regis…
To my mind, the DNT header is nice to have but almost breathtakingly naive. The real solutions lie in the direction of having the lack of tracking be enforced by the client, who (you hope) has a vested interest in their own privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft turning DNT on for all Windows users automatically pretty much killed the movement's momentum. While privacy as the default has strong arguments going for it, as a practical matter since DNT was supposed to be an intentional signal Microsoft's mass-flagging effectively drowned the signal in noise. And those who didn't know better lauded them for it, too.
Even if Microsoft turned DNT on by default Google/Facebook should still respect it. They could ask users to turn it off in the same way they bug people to install their software. Alternatively they could work on business models that don’t rely on collecting massive amounts of personal data about people who don’t want them to do that. E.g. Basic Attention Tokens and others.
Since DNT was specifically raised, bringing up how Microsoft's hug of death killed it seemed pertinent.
Did anyone who upvoted this actually watch the documentary or the trailer, or do HNers just automatically upvote anything that's anti-Facebook and Google these days? The documentary is mostly right-wing conspiracy theories about how liberal tech companies are trying to undermine democracy and favor Hillary Clinton. Watch the trailer if you don't believe me. Or read this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/17878332/cr…
This is how the world is today. We have strong opinions, and rarely do we care to actually update them. And it's not only because we are stubborn, but also because most of the public media doesn't add any valuable insights; it just picks one of several simple and well-known messages, and yells that message at us. So it's pretty clear what it's trying to say from just reading the title.
I think that a lot of Google and Facebook’s creepyness would go away if they’d just voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header. There’s no techical reason why don’t, just business ethics. That header is someone explicitly telling Google “I don’t want you to do this” _before_ collection happens and Google’s response is “we don’t give a shit what you want” and doing it anyway. The current model where you have to regis…
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/17878332/creepy-line-anti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you (or the authors of this piece) want to have a conversation about data harvesting, do that. Subtly entwining that with conservative conspiracy theories isn't just an innocuous side thread of the conversation. This is clearly an attempt to hijack the conversation about data harvesting to amplify their totally unrelated message about supposed suppression of conservative speech. This is a ca…
I'll try again. And that's it. You are concerned that this piece is wrong/misleading. Ok. Great. Another person wrong on the internet. Now, from a meta level, can you accept that the public discussion about data harvesting, like everything else is going to be politicized? And would you rather understand and engage people of all political persuasions by following their arguments, or are you happy just being in teams?…
However, the criticisms regarding this film raised in other comments and linked articles appear to be valid. It concerns me that you have repeatedly dismissed these objections as "slander", even before watching the film according to your own words.
You don't have to agree with someone's politics to work together on common ground, of course. And a film with a message may be worth watching even or especially if it challenges your views. But the film's agenda cannot be concealed.
The Verge article, for example, made no bones about its political views but also raised factual concerns about the film. It is also a fact, as others have pointed out, that the writer and director of this film, M.A. Taylor, also worked on political films such as Hype: The Obama Effect (which detailed "various questions about Barack Obama's past") and co-directed Clinton Cash along with former Brietbart chairman Steve Bannon: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3379741/
I think that a lot of Google and Facebook’s creepyness would go away if they’d just voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header. There’s no techical reason why don’t, just business ethics. That header is someone explicitly telling Google “I don’t want you to do this” _before_ collection happens and Google’s response is “we don’t give a shit what you want” and doing it anyway. The current model where you have to regis…
It’s not even that, it’s browser fingerprinting and everything. There is no honest reason to track logged-out users, full stop. And they knew that too, at some meeting someone said “we need to track people who don’t want or expect us to track them” and everyone nodded and the geeks all said, “hey I’ve got an idea”
I looked at the "Google" page ( https://www.thecreepyline.com/programs/google-v2 ) and noticed it doesn't mention a few kind of important things. (1) You can pause activity collection at https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols (2) You can delete activity here https://myactivity.google.com/delete-activity Also, does anyone know if Facebook offers interfaces like these?
FB has Activity Log, visible only to you, and shows what you posted, commented, liked, tagged, shared, searched, etc. From there you can manage and delete stuff if you want, by hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB has Activity Log, visible only to you, and shows what you posted, commented, liked, tagged, shared, searched, etc. From there you can manage and delete stuff if you want, by hand.
Does deletion of your data unlearn the models from the data?