Not a nitpick at all. This is a fundamental breach of the standard operating procedure for anyone watching TV with a remote control over the last 40 years.
Hard to tell before it happens whether it's just something people will accept and get used to, or if there will be so much backlash they'll stop doing it. It's named 'pause' for a reason.
Imagine if you paused Apple Music and sound kept filling your earholes. There would be a revolt.
I'd posit that a mistake that's already exposed that much data, undetected until now, is an amateur security mistake. If they get the data and the key, that's more like infantile.
My guess is that their board didn't learn a basic tenet of software development: when a system is malfunctioning, you fix it instead of disabling it.
Eagerly awaiting the day when there are hundreds of driverless Ubers on the road and some exec's decision to beta test in the field results in a Blues Brothers-esque pile of dead Ubers in the middle of the street.
Another interesting story would be if we could find out if this bug always existed or was introduced at a later time, and how the crack team of software engineers and testers at Adobe let it get into a product. I bet that store has more boneheads involved than just this guy.
If people would read Prop C they'd know that this tax is not just more money to give to the ineffective Mayor Breed to spend how she wishes. There is a board of experts and a long-term, comprehensive plan. The mayor and all her cronies came out against C because they want to continue doing the same, ineffective BS they've been doing for years (five years on the city council for Breed) because they're more concerned about corporate welfare.
I think it's great that this city voted around the mayor to try to get some cation done, and to get the Twitters of the world to pay half a percent in extra taxes. Lost in all of this is that most major corporations have not been paying taxes on payroll for a few years, so that half a percent is like nothing, and they've already saved that 200x over in the past few years.
This is a misconception about homelessness in San Francisco. The proportion of 'out of town' homeless is rather low. Most homless here are kids, families, native born.
Doesn't matter, anyway. These are human beings without a place to live and we should, you know, perhaps take care of each other...?
It takes about 10 seconds to find and read about the Prop C plan, which is long-term by the way, and properly managed, not like London Breed just spending money on studies and whatnot, not to mention paying cops to dismantle tent cities and take everyone's belongings. Her record on homelessness in abysmal and Prop C takes it out of her hands and puts it into the hands of people that know what they're doing.
100% wrong. Take 10 seconds to read what Prop C was really about.
It has its own board of experts not named London Breed, a 10 year plan, and specific provisions to prevent the funds from being raided for other causes. This is a long-term plan, not just throwing money at it like London Breed seems to do. She's quick for a photo op for her useless 'poop patrols' but I don't see any new bathrooms out here, which is what would really change the streets.
More money? Do you mean _after_ the 20-25% tax cut you get on payroll in SF?
Mayor Breed was on the city council for five years before she stumbled into the Mayor's office. She did nothing for the homeless in that time, but she shure contributed to the state of corporate welfare in this city.
I think you're just a troll and not really on any board, but I have no sympathy for billionaires that barely pay taxes and ignore the plight right outside their front doors.
Lost in all this discussion is the ineptitude of Google's engineers, security auditors, API designers, testers and who knows who else that would let something like this slip through unnoticed for so long. I no longer question Googel's ethics (they're bad) but more and more I'm questioning what kind of tech sweatshop they're running.
And what else is lurking out there that will (un?)intentionally give those of us pause that have already absolved ourselves of everything G.
Er, the climate against tech industry at the time of the Cambridge is where the comparison comes in. In other words, Google probably has other skeletons in their closet they didn't want the feds sniffin' around to find. If you had basic English reading comprehension skills you could figure that out. Nobody was comparing one incident to the other, it was Google itself, in the memos, that specifically cited Cambridge as a factor in them not disclosing this bug.
Does Google need all your personal info at Google HQ to tell you there's traffic? Your phone itself already knows that. Your phone also knows when your flight leaves. Why does Google need that info on their servers? They need it because Google is an advertising platform.
I dunno, I personally don't use Siri that often, but my iPhone itself knows when it's going to take me 20 extra minutes to get to the airport or work and prods me to leave early. All without selling my location and favorite Spice Girl (it's Sporty Spice) to anyone that wants to buy it.
This isn't a recent thing from Apple, it's been baked into their products and marketing since forever. It's just more on the forefront as late because of the abusive practices of the other guys coming to light.
I'm an Apple fanboy, and I use YouTube on the regular with out logging in or giving up any personal info. Occasionally Maps, too.
Thing is that most people don't realize how much data they collect. If your kid is a contact in your phone, Google, Facebook et al has tons of info on him/her, even if they don't have a Google or Facebook account.
Conservatively, Twitter has 1000 employees (likely more like 2500-3000.) What do you think all those people are doing? Even with the millions of users' data they have, it would take like three people to run that place if all they had was your basic info. It can't possible take more than seven people to develop their apps.
You mom has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding how to share music between iDevices. And I'm guessing family tech support (you) does, also. In no way does sharing your own music library between iDevices require a credit card. And there are ways of doing it without logging in.
Slight correction. You refer to Google and Facebook being a product. The reality is that _you_ are the product. Your personal data is the commodity that is being sold.
If I were dumb/desperate enough to use Google on an iPhone, it doesn't require me to log in or otherwise send my personal data/location back to Google.
Also, if I'm Apple and I don't have my own search engine, and Google comes knocking at my door with $9B free dollars, I'd have to be insane not to take that from them.
I can't wait for a few more years to go by and have everyone realize that voice assistants are dumb and inefficient for those of us that still have use of our arms.
The difference was put in an eloquent way by Cooke recently. Paraphrasing: "Your device should know everything about you, but Apple shouldn't."
It wasn't so long ago that an Android flashlight app was collecting your location data without your knowledge and sending it to servers in China. That this kind of thing can physically even happen on your Android phone should tell you about the purpose of that platform.
You're not a data point in a large set and being singled out and sold to directly, at the same time. It's 100% the latter.
If you're fine being advertised to, are you also fine having non-advertisers, anyone that wants to rent/buy/borrow/steal that data seeing it? This sounds like the classic 'if I haven't done anything wrong' defense about surveillance.
You might not care about what you do now, but let's say weed is outlawed in your state and the guvmunt suddenly has use for all that location data you've been sending them for the past few years. By putting 100% of your personal data online for the taking, you are pre-selling out your civil liberties. So have fun with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a nitpick at all. This is a fundamental breach of the standard operating procedure for anyone watching TV with a remote control over the last 40 years.
Hard to tell before it happens whether it's just something people will accept and get used to, or if there will be so much backlash they'll stop doing it. It's named 'pause' for a reason.
Imagine if you paused Apple Music and sound kept filling your earholes. There would be a revolt.
Except that they collect browsing habits/history that are attached to an email address, which is a saleable commodity.
Probably cuts down on robots indexing their data and selling it or doing whatever with it, too.
Annoying, I agree, but the evil empire has its reasons.
I'd posit that a mistake that's already exposed that much data, undetected until now, is an amateur security mistake. If they get the data and the key, that's more like infantile.
My guess is that their board didn't learn a basic tenet of software development: when a system is malfunctioning, you fix it instead of disabling it.
Eagerly awaiting the day when there are hundreds of driverless Ubers on the road and some exec's decision to beta test in the field results in a Blues Brothers-esque pile of dead Ubers in the middle of the street.
Another interesting story would be if we could find out if this bug always existed or was introduced at a later time, and how the crack team of software engineers and testers at Adobe let it get into a product. I bet that store has more boneheads involved than just this guy.
If people would read Prop C they'd know that this tax is not just more money to give to the ineffective Mayor Breed to spend how she wishes. There is a board of experts and a long-term, comprehensive plan. The mayor and all her cronies came out against C because they want to continue doing the same, ineffective BS they've been doing for years (five years on the city council for Breed) because they're more concerned about corporate welfare.
I think it's great that this city voted around the mayor to try to get some cation done, and to get the Twitters of the world to pay half a percent in extra taxes. Lost in all of this is that most major corporations have not been paying taxes on payroll for a few years, so that half a percent is like nothing, and they've already saved that 200x over in the past few years.
A bullet to the head is better than living in upper Michigan, homeless or not.
This is a misconception about homelessness in San Francisco. The proportion of 'out of town' homeless is rather low. Most homless here are kids, families, native born.
Doesn't matter, anyway. These are human beings without a place to live and we should, you know, perhaps take care of each other ...?
Make sure you tell him/her if they utter the words 'San Fran' out loud once they get here, someone might slap them.
It takes about 10 seconds to find and read about the Prop C plan, which is long-term by the way, and properly managed, not like London Breed just spending money on studies and whatnot, not to mention paying cops to dismantle tent cities and take everyone's belongings. Her record on homelessness in abysmal and Prop C takes it out of her hands and puts it into the hands of people that know what they're doing.
100% wrong. Take 10 seconds to read what Prop C was really about.
It has its own board of experts not named London Breed, a 10 year plan, and specific provisions to prevent the funds from being raided for other causes. This is a long-term plan, not just throwing money at it like London Breed seems to do. She's quick for a photo op for her useless 'poop patrols' but I don't see any new bathrooms out here, which is what would really change the streets.
More money? Do you mean _after_ the 20-25% tax cut you get on payroll in SF?
Mayor Breed was on the city council for five years before she stumbled into the Mayor's office. She did nothing for the homeless in that time, but she shure contributed to the state of corporate welfare in this city.
I think you're just a troll and not really on any board, but I have no sympathy for billionaires that barely pay taxes and ignore the plight right outside their front doors.
Pay up.
Lost in all this discussion is the ineptitude of Google's engineers, security auditors, API designers, testers and who knows who else that would let something like this slip through unnoticed for so long. I no longer question Googel's ethics (they're bad) but more and more I'm questioning what kind of tech sweatshop they're running.
And what else is lurking out there that will (un?)intentionally give those of us pause that have already absolved ourselves of everything G.
Er, the climate against tech industry at the time of the Cambridge is where the comparison comes in. In other words, Google probably has other skeletons in their closet they didn't want the feds sniffin' around to find. If you had basic English reading comprehension skills you could figure that out. Nobody was comparing one incident to the other, it was Google itself, in the memos, that specifically cited Cambridge as a factor in them not disclosing this bug.
Does Google need all your personal info at Google HQ to tell you there's traffic? Your phone itself already knows that. Your phone also knows when your flight leaves. Why does Google need that info on their servers? They need it because Google is an advertising platform.
I dunno, I personally don't use Siri that often, but my iPhone itself knows when it's going to take me 20 extra minutes to get to the airport or work and prods me to leave early. All without selling my location and favorite Spice Girl (it's Sporty Spice) to anyone that wants to buy it.
This isn't a recent thing from Apple, it's been baked into their products and marketing since forever. It's just more on the forefront as late because of the abusive practices of the other guys coming to light.
I'm an Apple fanboy, and I use YouTube on the regular with out logging in or giving up any personal info. Occasionally Maps, too.
Thing is that most people don't realize how much data they collect. If your kid is a contact in your phone, Google, Facebook et al has tons of info on him/her, even if they don't have a Google or Facebook account.
Conservatively, Twitter has 1000 employees (likely more like 2500-3000.) What do you think all those people are doing? Even with the millions of users' data they have, it would take like three people to run that place if all they had was your basic info. It can't possible take more than seven people to develop their apps.
My personal privacy is definitely worth a few benjamins to me. Without a doubt.
You mom has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding how to share music between iDevices. And I'm guessing family tech support (you) does, also. In no way does sharing your own music library between iDevices require a credit card. And there are ways of doing it without logging in.
Slight correction. You refer to Google and Facebook being a product. The reality is that _you_ are the product. Your personal data is the commodity that is being sold.
If I were dumb/desperate enough to use Google on an iPhone, it doesn't require me to log in or otherwise send my personal data/location back to Google.
Also, if I'm Apple and I don't have my own search engine, and Google comes knocking at my door with $9B free dollars, I'd have to be insane not to take that from them.
You just made that up 100% out of thin air. DDG is and always has been an American company.
I can't wait for a few more years to go by and have everyone realize that voice assistants are dumb and inefficient for those of us that still have use of our arms.
The difference was put in an eloquent way by Cooke recently. Paraphrasing: "Your device should know everything about you, but Apple shouldn't."
It wasn't so long ago that an Android flashlight app was collecting your location data without your knowledge and sending it to servers in China. That this kind of thing can physically even happen on your Android phone should tell you about the purpose of that platform.
You're not a data point in a large set and being singled out and sold to directly, at the same time. It's 100% the latter.
If you're fine being advertised to, are you also fine having non-advertisers, anyone that wants to rent/buy/borrow/steal that data seeing it? This sounds like the classic 'if I haven't done anything wrong' defense about surveillance.
You might not care about what you do now, but let's say weed is outlawed in your state and the guvmunt suddenly has use for all that location data you've been sending them for the past few years. By putting 100% of your personal data online for the taking, you are pre-selling out your civil liberties. So have fun with that.