10 ms·

Apple vs. Meta: The Illusion of Privacy

• atomaltera 3y ago
  Does that mean that Threads has access to my geolocation even if I did not grand such permission to the app in ios settings? Same question for browsing history and other items.
• rubyfan 3y ago
  I find it ironic that at the end he asks for my email address.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• m3kw9 3y ago
  Apple does enough for privacy, but Meta is the real a*hole here
  • paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Enough for some, clearly not all, hence this ... visual tour
  • jacobwilliamroy 3y ago
    What's an "a*hole"? Some kind of graph traversal algorithm?
  • toastal 3y ago
    Was the Kool-Aid tasty? But seriously, all of these megacorps are bad for our privacy on absolute terms & doesn’t matter if one is relatively a little better or keeping your data from another corporation since they’re hoarding it for their own advertising.
• boesboes 3y ago
  Fuck me that’s the worst UX I’ve seen in ages
  • jsnell 3y ago
    Threads or the site?
    • XMasterrrr 3y ago
      Both.
  • KineticLensman 3y ago
    First it told me ‘pro-tip’ that I was holding my phone wrong and when I did rotate to landscape mode, it ignored the rotation. I applied some ‘critical ignoring’ at that point, as per a peer article
  • flanbiscuit 3y ago
    I had the opposite reaction, but I'm on my laptop. It looks like they are using RevealJS (https://revealjs.com/ https://revealjs.com/). I mention that because I originally went in thinking of this as an "article" with an alternative UX, but in reality it's just a slide show. I did just try it on my mobile (Firefox, Android) and this format definitely doesn't translate well. I put it in landscape and it just shrink down the desktop site to fit. I feel like they should either encourage people to read on desktop or have an alternative mobile version.
    • nicce 3y ago
      On desktop it was very good. On mobile... well I had to switch to desktop.
  • taneq 3y ago
    "Use your KEYBOARD ARROWS to view the story" reminds me of the way Minecraft Legends pops up a hint saying "Press [left mouse button graphic] to start" when you click or press space or escape or literally any other commonly used "ok that's nice, please proceed" key. If you understand my intent well enough to post a passive-aggressive note telling me how I should ask to move to the next part, you understand me well enough to just skip to the next fkn part. Edit: Just launched Minecraft Legends to confirm details and that it still does this. Apparently it's changed a bit but still pops up "Press [left mouse button] to start" on the splash screen and, if you hit space, changes to "Press [picture of enter key] to start" so I feel my point stands. Edit2: Oh and when a cinematic starts... if you hit Esc it pops up a similar tip saying "Press ␣ to continue." WHAT DID YOU THINK I WANT- ugh I'm over it.
• phailhaus 3y ago
  There's no "ransom" being held for deleting your data from Threads. The point is that Threads is built on top of Instagram, which means that if you want to delete your data, Threads doesn't have it. Instagram does.
  • M4v3R 3y ago
    That's just tech-speak. To the end user these are two separate apps. And Meta definitely has a way of telling which bits of data came from Threads and which from Instragram. They just chose not to make it easy for the user to delete only Threads data.
    • jklinger410 3y ago
      > To the end user these are two separate apps You literally use your Instagram login to create a Threads account.
      • troupo 3y ago
        So, you "create a Threads account", but somehow you can't delete it? There are thousands of services where you use the account of one service to create the account of another, and you can still delete those accounts.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • phailhaus 3y ago
      The point is that your Threads account is your Instagram account. They're not separate.
      • JKCalhoun 3y ago
        So technically too hard to "downgrade" your Threads account back to an Instagram account? Odd.
      • Kwpolska 3y ago
• black_puppydog 3y ago
  That's a pretty neat way of making a "blog post". Reveal.js I guess?
• troupo 3y ago
  Threads isn't banned in the EU. The rumour is that Threads couldn't launch in the EU due to upcoming Digital Markets App. Which is also a good thing: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act
• landyrev 3y ago
  It's funny they ask me to subscribe to their newsletter using my email in the end without any explanation on how they're going to use it :)
  • deutschepost 3y ago
    Or you could just log in with the embedded „Log in with Google“ Button. Which ironically probably tracks you too without even clicking it.
    • lost_tourist 3y ago
      It probably notes the timing, position of click, acceleration of mouse.
• daft_pink 3y ago
  I think it's unfair to compare Facebook actively screwing us to Apple not adopting your proposed metric on their product and passively allowing a very popular app in their app store. Not a huge fan of Apple, but they aren't Facebook.
  • giancarlostoro 3y ago
    I was going to say, nobody believes in any privacy Meta alleges. Even when they do E2EE they still collect anything else about you that they can.
    • GeekyBear 3y ago
      Nobody believes anything Meta or Google have to say about privacy. Google is currently trying to sell additional ways to spy on users built into the newest version of Chrome as a "privacy sandbox". > all of Google's documentation about this feature feels like it was written on opposite day, with Google calling the browser-based advertising platform "a significant step on the path towards a fundamentally more private web." https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-opposed-ad-platform-the-privacy-sandbox-launches-in-chrome https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...
      • edgyquant 3y ago
        Who brought google up? They aren’t relevant to the discussion.
        • doublerabbit 3y ago
          How are they not relevant. They suck data from you for money. Exactly what Twitter, Microsoft and Amazon do too.
          • soperj 3y ago
            And Apple now with their ad business. How are they fundamentally different?
• envy2 3y ago
  Yes, ad-supported social apps collect a ton of data. But the Apple privacy widget list is just a catch-all since people can post anything and Meta uses post content for ad targeting. Have you gone through Apple's onboarding flow recently? The process of creating an Apple ID and setting up an iPhone is pretty similar, and has similar click-wrap terms to allow endless data use, including [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Apple has done a very good job of marketing privacy. But they engage in pretty much all of the same practices they call others out for. Also, Threads didn't launch in Europe because of DMA data separation requirements between products. It has nothing to do with the invasiveness of the data collected per se as is implied here [6]. [1] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/pdfs/apple-privacy-policy-en-ww.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/pdfs/apple-privacy-polic... [2] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-id/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-id/ [3] https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS16_iPadOS16.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS16_iPadOS16.pdf [4] https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/ https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/ [5] https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/ https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/ [6] https://www.theverge.com/23789754/threads-meta-twitter-eu-dma-digital-markets https://www.theverge.com/23789754/threads-meta-twitter-eu-dm...
• endisneigh 3y ago
  If you want privacy guarantees do not install or use anything connected to the internet. Even HN - with stylometry and a motivated actor it's easy to correlate your username here with any other publicly written text. An even more motivated actor could do this with privately written text (you know, all of those data breaches). Stay offline for your safety. This is obviously unrealistic for many in the modern era. So now the question is - regardless of how much or what is collected, which companies are least likely to sell you out, by any means? By pretty much any criteria Apple is near the top of that list. Though, they're not the very, very top. Companies like Mullvad offer services in a way such that nothing is collected at all, and since you can pay cash in theory no way to come back to you. Personally, for me - it's more important to think about whether or not you trust the organization you're dealing with, than whether or not they're collecting stuff or not. Of the big tech companies I'd say I trust Apple the most from their track record, but I am not under any illusion that I have absolute privacy while using Apple products, and neither should you.
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    Personally, I literally cannot think of a tech company that I trust even a little bit.
  • appplication 3y ago
    Unless you’re a public figure with troves of available text to your name, I don’t really buy the idea that stylometry could be used to identify normal folks or even link accounts between platforms. I would need to see some reality compelling evidence. Especially because character limits and different use patterns for different platforms could throw a wrench in things.
    • renewiltord 3y ago
      The HN stylometry site (now dead) was actually pretty effective.
    • LoganDark 3y ago
      There are probably plenty of people on here with easily identifiable writing styles, either due to neurodivergence (like me) or whatever else. Though, it wouldn't be necessary for me because my username is just my real name and I already use it everywhere anyway.
• Dig1t 3y ago
  Really well done, this same narrative would also make a good Youtube video.
• fh9302 3y ago
  This article seems to conflate Apple for Meta's privacy violations. Yes, the OS can always make it more difficult to do fingerprinting and the app store could add even more "privacy warnings", but in the end if you use a privacy violating third party app they will always find ways to slurp up all your data. Using this as some kind of argument that Apple doesn't care about privacy is dishonest.
  • wredue 3y ago
    And uh. Let be honest with ourselves here. Our alternative is currently android. So instead of meta slurping up all your shit, google vacuums it all up and then some, and lets even more of it trickle in to meta.
    • toastal 3y ago
      Unless you go the custom ROM + microG option that 98% of folks would never do… or you embrace the Linux phone OS which has no ‘apps’ (like that banking app that banned you for rooting your other Linux (Android) phone) & the telephony barely works if it even does. This duopoly sucks.
      • imwillofficial 3y ago
        98%? 100% effectively.
      • soperj 3y ago
        I just use my banking website from my phone. Why install apps?
        • toastal 3y ago
          My bank is detecting Netscape Navigator 4 & you better bet it’s a horrible experience for small viewports, & generally a buggy experience altogether (scoping other sites in my country, they are all just as bad). This is also presupposing the Google doesn’t get its Web Environment Integrity (WEI) initiative foisted upon us allowing the banks to do the same sketchy attestation that they can do with apps from the browser--meaning they could deny you from running an alternative OS, disabling TPM/Pluton/Secure Boot, to having admin/root access like they block it on phones for dubious reasons.
• raspyberr 3y ago
  Privacy blog post. vercel-insights.com, www.google.com, 'Sign up with Google', Join 132,793 people from companies like: Microsoft, Amazon, facebook, Google, Disney "There it is again. That funny feeling."
  • daneel_w 3y ago
    Ironic, isn't it. And the author apparently has nothing at all to say about Android and Google.
    • nirvdrum 3y ago
      The article is about Apple because Apple is the one billing itself as the vanguard of privacy and as the privacy-preserving opponent of Android. It's also quite possible the author doesn't have or use an Android device. If you've invested in a platform for reasons related to privacy, I think it's quite okay to be concerned when that platform falls short on some pretty big privacy invasions.
      • daneel_w 3y ago
        They bill themselves as the privacy-protecting opponent of Android because iOS/iPadOS doesn't commit to breaches of privacy the way Google does in, well, pretty much all of their products. So how does Apple fall short, and how are they the ones committing privacy invasions? By allowing third-party applications on the App Store? By not rejecting every app they don't like? They're doing users the favor of letting them know what information apps can collect so that users can make informed choices.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • nirvdrum 3y ago
          Maybe I misread your intent, but it sounded like a "gotcha!" on the original post because the author didn't dive into something with even worse privacy protections. Google and Android don't need to be brought up every time Apple privacy is being discussed. For a huge swathe of people it's an irrelevant point. And, yes, I believe Apple could do better. Being better at privacy than Google isn't a monumental hurdle to clear. We can and should push all parties to do better. > They're doing users the favor of letting them know what information apps can collect so that users can make informed choices. The whole point of the article is that this information is hard to find and hard to understand. The author is suggesting Apple find a better way to present that data. That would help consumers make a more informed decision. Many people don't realize just how pervasive that tracking is. Perhaps surfacing that data would help consumers pressure bad actors into being better citizens. Moreover, I'd argue they should also use their platform to rein things in. It'd be nice if they used their position to improve the privacy of their users. It's their walled garden. It's their platform. It's their APIs being used. The App Store already has a bunch of rules, most of which benefit Apple, so I don't think it's a huge leap to add one that protects consumers. And a lot of the current privacy issues are a result of Apple and Google building a new platform that gives apps unprecedented access to personal data. I think they have a responsibility to clean up that mess. If that means apps like Threads aren't viable, so be it. But, I suspect Meta would be able to find a way to make a social media app that doesn't need to track so much.
• dm319 3y ago
  You don't expect your health data, financial data and purchase history (does that include anything paid for by Apple pay?) to be shared with Meta just because you are trying out Threads.
  • hospitalJail 3y ago
    This kind of blew my mind. People get soo invested in Apple's Walled Ecosystem. Imagine in 10 years, they flip on a dime and start selling your info. 1 company has health, finance, search/URL history, emails, all pictures ever, etc... Yikes times 100.
    • dwaite 3y ago
      How is that untrue for nearly any computing platform?
      • hospitalJail 3y ago
        I don't do any finance with Google or Microsoft, I def don't give any health info to Microsoft, I use degoogled browsers, so I don't think they are able to grab any URLs/searches(or if they do, its clear they arent current matching anything to my main account). Every company gets a little bit of information, where as, I'm suggesting that in this particular case, 1 company gets everything.
        • dwaite 3y ago
          But in terms of using those platforms - you likely log into your bank via a chrome-based browser or Edge. Even if not, you are still running a browser on their platform. Why not scrape financial information from another source such as disk storage or by monitoring network/crypto API? If the platform vendor turns malicious, why presuppose they will only alter the behavior with respect to their own apps?
    • rubberband 3y ago
      Agreed on "yikes" for sure... What I'd be interested in is, if [Evil Company] (not necessarily Apple or Google or whomever) got a hold of all the data that was vacuumed up in the process... how is that going to translate into them being able to do disturbing things? I'm not saying they can't or won't... they record and store this firehose of arbitrary data in arbitrary formats... how they make sense of it. It's not like when you open Threads, it goes "ooh there's pictures of his dog... INSERT INTO Dog SELECT 12345, 'great-dane', {base64}"... They collect all this data... But it's not well formatted or understood. Don't get me wrong, there's an ocean of money for whomever figures out the most evil stuff to do. I'm simply curious how. I guess the HN crowd could... disrupt privacy /s
• lemper 3y ago
  sorry, bud. your site has 'design' as tld but it seems you don't put any mind into content readability on mobile.
• screye 3y ago
  Apple's core incentives are misaligned with stealing your data. And that's why they are more trustworthy than facebook. It's that simple. Apple is first and foremost a lifestyle company, then a b2b platform company, then a hardware company. The lifestyle company ensures customer acquisition and the 'unreasonable' pricing . The platform company is the revenue, the moat and the golden handcuffs for every 3rd party company who works with Apple. The Hardware company ensures that Apple stays ahead, so no one can be the next Apple. Apple could be an ads company too. But ads companies bleed trust. That weakens the value of both Apple the lifestyle company and Apple the hardware company. Apple already skims 30% of your app revenue. They don't need to make money from ads, when they can make money from those who make money from ads. Apple being an ads company would spook the partners of Apple the platform company. I trust Apple not because they're good. But because selling your data hurts their bottomline. Trust capitalistic incentives and teack records, everything else is virtue signalling.
  • zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    No corporation has strong incentives not to “steal” your data. It’s just not something 99% of consumers care about so if they can make more money doing it they will.
    • troupo 3y ago
      > It’s just not something 99% of consumers care about Consumers definitely care about this. That's why there are so many dark patterns to tric consumers into providing their data. Also: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/07/most-iphone-users-app-tracking-opt-out/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/07/most-iphone-users-app-t...
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    > I trust Apple not because they're good. But because selling your data hurts their bottomline. Trust capitalistic incentives and teack records, everything else is virtue signalling. Nailed it. I trust Apple (as much as I’d trust any giant corp, and there are none more giant) because they have a profit motive to sell me privacy-respecting products. They have a few trillion dollars to lose by burning their customers. If Apple were good about privacy because Tim Cook is a nice guy who believed in it even if it were a financial loss, that would be one CEO change away from disappearing. That’s not the case. Their stockholders are raking in cash from it. And if there’s one thing I trust in capitalism, it’s that a smart company will do things that make it more money.
• jonhohle 3y ago
  I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. I received a letter from Target that by default they’ll sell my information to unaffiliated third parties and I have to call or write a letter to opt-out. I’m sure I agreed to that at some point (and anyone signing up for a loyalty program that doesn’t cost anything should realize that’s what they are agreeing to, even if they are not explicitly told that), but perhaps they should be required to explicitly list the actual costs to the customer along side the benefits. Last week I was picking up a prescription at CVS. In between confirming name and address and signing for payment or receipt of Rx they slipped a marketing agreement that I stupidly agreed to before realizing that it wasn’t an agreement related to the prescription purchase. So in someone’s compromised medical state (assuming), when you just want to get medicine to get back to normal they hide an agreement to sell information. None of this improves my life. I just want to transact money for items and end the relationship until it happens again. I don’t need every advertiser knowing every one of or even habitual purchase I make. If you work in ad-tech or are responsible for these front-end schemes to collect more information: 1: screw you 2: it’s super creepy and even if you’re not creepy, the stuff you’re working on and the people you are working for are 3: seriously, it’s really disgusting, immoral, and deceptive to find all manor of ways to trick people into agreeing to sell personal information that they assume (rightly) is private (even when done in public) 4: start leaking information on schemes, tricks, & loopholes so something can be done to destroy invasive ad tech
  • endisneigh 3y ago
    > I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. As long as people get "free stuff" people won't get fed up.
    • ryandrake 3y ago
      What "free stuff" is OP getting from Target and CVS in exchange for the data they are collecting and sharing? Nothing. We're already not getting free stuff and people still aren't fed up.
      • 3y ago
• Guvante 3y ago
  I don't know why everyone points to taking pictures and audio as scary on social media apps. The ability to record and post a video is effectively baseline functionality and requires those permissions. Certainly Meta is doing shady things here but not all of the permissions are necessarily sketchy. (I would agree that much like position data more specificity would be good for permissions)
  • lost_tourist 3y ago
    Not for us passive social media users. I just flip through friends stuff or news /blogs that I follow, no need for pictures/audio from me. Definitely something to be opted into manually.
    • jhugg 3y ago
      You do, in fact, opt into this manually on an iPhone.
    • Guvante 3y ago
      Both Android and iOS opt in manually to those things. They also list them on the app store to avoid being surprised that the flashlight app records audio.
• baxuz 3y ago
  Wish this could have a normal article format instead of the cheap meme-worthy avatar generator.
  • jonathankoren 3y ago
    I knew it was going to be bad when it asked me to turn my phone. The whole thing gave me mandated HR training course vibes.
  • lost_tourist 3y ago
    I don't think this was meant for the HN crowd, to be honest. We'll just have to deal with the cutesy controls. I thought it was fun, I don't think everything has to be straight text and static images.
• sfc32 3y ago
  That was a fun little presentation, nothing super-new there but it did have a good idea about showing the trust level of the application with a badge. All credibility was then swept away by "Sign up with Google" to the mailing list on the last page. Hilarious.
• monetus 3y ago
  It is crazy how disingenuous this comic is. I get that it was fun to make, but damn I wish that it informed rather than propagandized.
• shreddit 3y ago
  Oh the irony: Sign up to get this free Ethical design cheat sheet: [ Google Sign in] [Email Sign in]
  • warkdarrior 3y ago
    But it's ethical, it says so in the name!
• jkubicek 3y ago
  > There's nothing wrong with a bit of data collection I would argue that there is something wrong with a bit of data collection. Just take credit score for example, there's never an ethical reason for a social network to ever ask for or know my credit score. edit: the author implies that collecting this kind of stuff is OK as long as companies are transparent about what they're doing and why. I don't think there's any level of transparency that makes collecting this user data OK.
• stringsandchars 3y ago
  Ironic that the last screen wants you to 'drop a comment' on LinkedIn... or even signup for the mailing list 'with Google'. I guess this guy thought knocking Apple for Meta's unscrupulous methods would just guarantee some nerd-kudos, but didn't feel any need to follow his own advice in practice.
• daneel_w 3y ago
  I don't understand why the author insists on throwing cheap jabs at Apple by mixing them up with Meta's privacy violations. I think Apple's new privacy/integrity lists for apps is a commendable favor. The Google "sponsorship" at the end doesn't aid the credibility either.
• felipetrz 3y ago
  Ironic that the last slide asks me to subscribe to a newsletter with my Google account.
• srg0 3y ago
  Awesome slides, but then I tried to subscribe to growth.design newsletter using a Firefox Relay email, but mozmail email masks are rejected. So much for privacy.
• throwawa86753 3y ago
  preface: i don't have any receipts to physically prove this. i worked at a large health co. that had a partnership with apple to publish an app (which apple wrote the code for, designed, etc.) under health co.'s name. the purpose of the partnership was to promote use of HealthKit on apple devices and increase sales/adoption. much later, i took over technical ownership of the partnership and while i was getting up to speed, the value of the partnership didn't make much sense to me from apple's perspective -- it seemed to be incredibly beneficial to health co. and ostensibly not very much so for apple, health co. got a free, polished health app for its customers and apple got… not much of anything? a small boost in sales at most. yet, it was clear it was a priority for apple based on how they managed the partnership (very responsive, helpful, etc.). suddenly, a few months after i got up to speed, apple informed health co. that they were terminating the relationship on a near future date (a couple months at most). this was surprising given the seeming importance of the partnership to apple in the past, and we weren't able to get convincing reasons as to why apple's attitude had changed. but then, once it came time for apple to transfer ownership of the app to use, things got a bit odd. * at first, they told us they'd be fine with handing over non-sensitive code and assets (e.g. removing apple internal libraries, etc.). * then, they said instead of handing over code they'd do a technical overview of the architecture and the code but couldn't give us the physical code. * then finally, they reversed course entirely and informed us it was impossible to de-instrument their sensitive "telemetry" from the code and couldn't share any information about the code with us at all (mind you, this was an app that was published by US that we were legally responsible for). this led me to suppose that their code was doing something they didn't want us to see. given the purpose of the app, the most valuable, nefarious thing you could do was vacuum up massive amounts of user health data about all of health co.'s users -- not only that, but being able to do it at one step removed, not legally AS apple (not their app, after all). this speculation was reinforced when i realized the date of termination of our partnership was one day prior to the change to the App Store's privacy disclosure guidelines -- they made one final update to the App Store (probably removing the telemetry, etc.) and didn't have to make a disclosure about data usage. any subsequent updates would have had to have made this disclosure.
• lefixx 3y ago
  Apple's crime is not doing enough even though it's one of the biggest tech giants and not collecting data is against their interests. Cataloging and informing users of all the possible info going into the apps is a really good tool against data harvesting. In an "Apple vs Meta", apple is defo the winner. Still apple is not your friend and is actively working against your interests in all kinds of ways.
• joemaller1 3y ago
  > Pro tip: Use landscape mode! No.
• joemaller1 3y ago
  Wait, this whole confusing click-through mess of a rant about privacy and protecting our data ended with a Google sign-up form and a post on LinkedIn? Seriously?
• jp57 3y ago
  The "Sign-up with Google" button at the end is the punch line.
  • goenning 3y ago
    Signing in with Google is your choice, the author is not putting the article behind a login wall. I see nothing wrong with it.
• dwaite 3y ago
  It is weird that the Apple angle in the article is basically "Apple isn't changing store rules immediately and retroactively to block a company who we don't like"
• hedora 3y ago
  I love the irony of the “sign up with google” button at the end of the slideshow.
• rapht 3y ago
  At this point, I don't really care who is to blame between Apple allowing Meta's intrusivity, and Meta or any others just being intrusive. There is no solution other than "regulate the personal data market out of existence" - meaning going one step further than GDPR and just forbid any use of my personal data except in the context of fulfilling an actual purchase or specific request by me and for communicating with me to the extent I allow it. All other uses are banned.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• legel 3y ago
  Wow, just shows how powerful a brilliant UX design + passionate intelligent activism can be. I love where it lands, with concrete proposals to visualize privacy scores. +1
• gaucheries 3y ago
  The author’s point about Threads’ privacy/data usage seems moot. Presumably they already use Instagram, and that app’s “Data Linked to You” section in the iOS App Store is comparable to Threads. I thought that they made a good point about how the Threads screen that links to the privacy policies doesn’t highlight the links very well. But it seems to me that the average social media user probably doesn’t care and would gloss over it anyway. I liked their suggestion that the App Store use a “privacy rating” feature.
  • gaucheries 3y ago
    The person who downvoted my comment should reply.
• snoack 3y ago
  sponsored by Google
• Fervicus 3y ago
  Most people here are criticizing this presentation (in true HN fashion), but I appreciated it. I think we need to try new approaches like this to get the message to non tech, especially younger crowd who tend to be less interested in reading long articles.
• YeBanKo 3y ago
  Simple fix. Ballot measure to replace the “right to be forgotten” with the “permission to be remembered”, that need to be renewed every, 1-3 years. If companies fails to obtain permission in 3 years, then it must remove your data. Such permission is non transferable, meaning that if you started an account with Good Company, Inc. and it was acquired by Evil Corp, Inc. The latter need to get a new permission under the new name. Oh, and data brokers can’t have your info, unless they ask you for permission. Right to “opt-out of sale” needs to be replaced with “option to opt-in”. Basically meaning you opt out by default and companies need your explicit permission to sell you data.
  • RandomWorker 3y ago
    I like it, but what if we train a neural network that remembers all the data in its weights? My sense is that these companies are using large (deep neural network) models to make their recommendation systems work. We can't ask the neural network to selectively forget a person, at least to my ability.
  • kyle-rb 3y ago
    Please don't force Twitter to delete more of my favorite inactive accounts.
    • YeBanKo 3y ago
      Content != pii.
      • kyle-rb 3y ago
        A lot of content contains PII, and I'm pretty sure the 'right to be forgotten' GDPR laws don't distinguish; it's just "your data" in general that's deleted.
• viktorcode 3y ago
  One big misconception here is the suggestion to clearly mark apps with "good" or "bad" privacy signs on App Store. In reality Apple does not consider apps like Threads "bad" in any sense, as long as those apps don't collect data without explicit user consent. Also, "they just use fingerprinting" is a myth. Fingerprinting is never ending cat and mouse game between Apple and data collecting companies. In short, fingerprinting is not working reliably if you not actively improving it non-stop while risking App Store ban.
• hyuuu 3y ago
  I can't wait for a complete privacy where no business can target relevant offers. I remember the good old days of early 2000, every ad was either real estate, viagra, real estate, viagra or porn. The amount of money going to advertising will be just as ridiculous, but I just want to see the one with the most money to saturate the market and bombard us with shitty ads, like the good old days.
• jhugg 3y ago
  This is a hard problem to fix with UX, as evidenced by Apple's over-simplistic warnings. e.g. Threads may collect your financial data! But only if you give it to them, usually to purchase ads or verifications, etc.. This scary warning is over-scary. e.g. Mastodon collects less data about you, but there's no warning for "The backend is unencrypted and likely run by a handful of humans (who are probably nice but answer to nobody)."
• anosidium 3y ago
  This is absolutely amazing! I wish more related content were made in this format.
• geekraver 3y ago
  Delete the app; use the web interface?
• dvorak_typist 3y ago
  Advertising (verb): Military Propaganda targeting a Civilian Population in order to get that population to spend money on products they would not otherwise purchase.