Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

projectaria.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#71

Post by PaulHoule »

ethbr0 wrote: post #70
PaulHoule wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU just should have said "if you don't respect DNT, go directly to jail and don't pass Go".

How would not respecting DNT have been proven? The rub here is that everyone wanted to ignore DNT, because it made them lots and lots of money.

How can you prove that they respect your preferences in those consent theater pop ups?

I think those pop ups are the worst thing that ever happened to the web because they eliminated the moral authority that anyone had to say “it is user hostile to use pop ups”. Once the EU made it appear “required” and even “laudable” or “prosocial” there was no basis to say “you shouldn’t put this other popup in that will make users feel harassed”.

So now we get pages where the popups get in the way of the other popups.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#72

Post by nerdponx »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #31
croes wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why does the banner say? >We use cookies to personalise and improve content and services, deliver relevant advertisements and increase the safety of our users

It’s probably the default language for the company. Technical, t he at allows them to have tracking cookies even if they don’t have them now

Right, I'm sure this is boilerplate language provided by a law firm.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#73

Post by nerdponx »

sangnoir wrote: post #65
guy98238710 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language is all that matters when it comes to law. It's a blatant violation of GDPR.

What if the banner language suggests they might break GDPR, but in reality they are not doing those things? If my SaaS forces you to select a checkbox that states you're agreeing to allow me to set fire to your house (which is illegal) - would the sign up itself be breaking the law? IANAL, but I don't think it would be; I wont be breaking any laws until I commit arson.

It's breaking the law because you're essentially being forced to consent to some thing that they legally must give you the option to opt out of. It's not about them doing it, it's about the validity of their request for consent.

If I hire a hitman to murder somebody, but the hitman chickens out, I'm still guilty of having hired a hitman, even if nobody died.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#74

Post by ohgodplsno »

rglullis wrote: post #68
ohgodplsno wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same Brave that is selling data for AI companies, which may or may not include personal data ? I'd say it's probably not a good day for Brave advocacy. Neither is any other day.

That's a very good example of "argument-by-Google". You know what conclusion you want to achieve, so you just go around looking for statements that are either taken out of context or misunderstood and that can be backed by a (shallow) google search. For the record: go back to the article that you are (wrongly) alluding to [0] and see how much the author has retracted. Also, see the response from Brave's Chief of Sear…

I'm just going to quote the updated, follow up article:

The Brave Search API does not respect the site's licensing, and Brave is under the assumption that 1) because they are a search engine and 2) because they attribute the URI of data - this puts them in the clear to scrape and resell data word-for-word.

Brave steals data and resells it, and is not to be considered a trustworthy entity.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#75

Post by samstave »

coldpie wrote: post #9
dustypotato wrote: post #2

First thing I notice while browsing from EU is that there's only one option regarding cookies. Accept all! Even if I click "Learn more" there's no "accept necessary cookies" or "Reject cookies". First time I encounter something like this.

I have to admit, for technical folks like ourselves, I don't understand why you care what options the dialog presents. Just use a "Kill Sticky" plugin to nuke the stupid dialog so you can read the page, or even Accept them, and then instruct your browser to do whatever you like with the cookies the site creates (i.e. delete them). It's all in your hands, the popup dialog doesn't do anything you can't do yourself.

I have to admit, for the non-technical folks like not-ourselves, I don't understand why people dont know about such "simple lifehacks" -->

You're knowledge is sound, but rather than condescedingly relegate people to your 'simple' workaround - the ENTIRE premise of cookies and tracking against ones implicit desire to be private, is assinine.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#76

Post by rglullis »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #74
rglullis wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good example of "argument-by-Google". You know what conclusion you want to achieve, so you just go around looking for statements that are either taken out of context or misunderstood and that can be backed by a (shallow) google search. For the record: go back to the article that you are (wrongly) alluding to [0] and see how much the author has retracted. Also, see the response from Brave's Chief of Sear…

I'm just going to quote the updated, follow up article: The Brave Search API does not respect the site's licensing, and Brave is under the assumption that 1) because they are a search engine and 2) because they attribute the URI of data - this puts them in the clear to scrape and resell data word-for-word. Brave steals data and resells it, and is not to be considered a trustworthy entity.

The article went from "selling personal data to AI companies" to "selling results in the API search with a longer summary than Google which might be a violation of fair use policy", and yet you still don't want to back down.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#77

Post by explaininjs »

ethbr0 wrote: post #63
explaininjs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, the same company that provides a litany of fine grained cookie retention options in its User Agent’s options page? Except thanks to the government’s antagonistic policies (read: big-media’s lobbying) those are useless as you need to keep on clicking the damn pop ups every time you visit a page “anew”. Also never forget we already had a perfectly good solution in the form of Do Not Track headers that a benevol…

DNT was ignored from the time it was implemented. The only way it ever would have been respected if it was required to cryptographically sign an acceptance of cookies, then the server was required to retain that attestation as proof of acceptance, subject to legal liability if they were found in possession of tracking data without a valid attestation. Absent enforceability, even when the server actively and malicious…

GDPR doesn’t involve any of your crypto-nerding so I don’t see how this is relevant in any way.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#78

Post by mensetmanusman »

dustypotato wrote: post #2

First thing I notice while browsing from EU is that there's only one option regarding cookies. Accept all! Even if I click "Learn more" there's no "accept necessary cookies" or "Reject cookies". First time I encounter something like this.

It’s amazing how much worse browsing the web has gotten after all these pop-ups everywhere.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#79

Post by kaffeeringe »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #78
dustypotato wrote: post #2

First thing I notice while browsing from EU is that there's only one option regarding cookies. Accept all! Even if I click "Learn more" there's no "accept necessary cookies" or "Reject cookies". First time I encounter something like this.

It’s amazing how much worse browsing the web has gotten after all these pop-ups everywhere.

You mean how much worse surfing the web got after it became visible, how much companies are tracking us? The problem is the tracking, not the banner. If you don't sell your readers data, you don't need a banner.

Re: Project Aria 'Digital Twin' Dataset by Meta

#80

Post by JohnFen »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #62
dleeftink wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a welcome future, indeed. And hopefully, not just upheld in some regions of the world, but everywhere where AR-backed AGI gets off the ground. And this governing structure would need to work for some decades at least. Which would be quite a feat. That still leaves my first question regarding observer effects and how people would respond to such a technology on an individual level. It would have the capa…

TBH I don't know, and I think there's a real chance that there's going to be actual changes in how people behave as a result - which, if it's integrated like many other social changes will become another layer in the fabric of society, displacing another layer. For better or worse I think it's just an exposure thing. You are persistently surveilled in London and Shanghai and New York City - yet people act just as unh…

> You are persistently surveilled in London and Shanghai and New York City - yet people act just as unhinged in ways they did before cameras were installed.

Unhinged people do, but ordinary people? I'd be willing to bet that normal people who are in areas where they are aware they're on camera don't behave as their normal selves. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

Post reply on HN