61–70 of 78 posts
Good. Now do TikTok since we all know that is just as bad as Meta for their privacy violations as well.
Is it? Does Tiktok track everything you do across the entire Internet, like Facebook and Google do? They might, I don't know, but I haven't seen "tiktok.com" in my NoScript list on 90% of websites like I have FB and Google.
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? Does Tiktok track everything you do across the entire Internet, like Facebook and Google do? They might, I don't know, but I haven't seen "tiktok.com" in my NoScript list on 90% of websites like I have FB and Google.
But to be clear, Tiktok does have a tracking pixel for their ads program
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
--- start quote ---
A surprising number (56%) also say they can share your information with the government or law enforcement in response to a “request.” Not a high bar court order, but something as easy as an “informal request.” Yikes -- that’s a very low bar!
...
Nissan earned its second-to-last spot for collecting some of the creepiest categories of data we have ever seen. It’s worth reading the review in full, but you should know it includes your “sexual activity.” Not to be out done, Kia also mentions they can collect information about your “sex life” in their privacy policy. Oh, and six car companies say they can collect your “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics.”
--- end quote ---
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Yes. Because the line between companies and government is very thin. (government has access to those companie's data, more or less legaly).
But these companies do not collect chat data. Whatsapp is end to end encrypted. It is my government who wants to break that encryption.
These companies say they don't collect chat data but they also say they follow local laws and you see from above that they obviously, deliberately don't.
Does "end to end encryption" really mean anything if you control decryption at both ends of the connection?
It's just harder to intercept over the wire that's all.
> Meta told a two-day court hearing in August it had already committed to ask for consent from users and that Datatilsynet used an "expedited process" that was unnecessary and did not give the company enough time to answer. So, in other words, Meta is complaining that Datatilsynet moved fast and broke things. Interesting.
> Datatilsynet used an "expedited process" that was unnecessary and did not give the company enough time to answer The GDPR became enforceable 5 years ago, and this is their core business. This does not concern some ambiguous edge case, it's essentially the fundamental reason the law exists. Either they've been willfully breaking the law for 5 years and the fact that they haven't been fined out of existence should be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re a contact in someone else’s profile who has you in their contact list.
Still not an equivalent to what Google and Meta are doing. Google and Meta are everywhere on the internet. Google controls the most popular browser. The volume of data that those two harvest is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Datatilsynet used an "expedited process" that was unnecessary and did not give the company enough time to answer The GDPR became enforceable 5 years ago, and this is their core business. This does not concern some ambiguous edge case, it's essentially the fundamental reason the law exists. Either they've been willfully breaking the law for 5 years and the fact that they haven't been fined out of existence should be…
It could also be interpreted as legislation is not the savior a lot of tech types want it to be. There are existing laws on the books that do not get enforced, so this is just another example. Instead, the net effect of these laws just make things worse. The cookie banner is an example. I do not believe that a website is honestly going to respect the changes I set on a website, that's why I have my browser block them…
No regulation is a "saviour".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also be interpreted as legislation is not the savior a lot of tech types want it to be. There are existing laws on the books that do not get enforced, so this is just another example. Instead, the net effect of these laws just make things worse. The cookie banner is an example. I do not believe that a website is honestly going to respect the changes I set on a website, that's why I have my browser block them…
The problem is enforcement, yes, and GDPR is finally, if very slowly, is getting enforced. No regulation is a "saviour".
only if you're british while looking for the colour green in the shoppe