3 ms·

Whatever location information is being presented is being displayed from a lookup from a publicly accessible database. It’s not a private DB that only one org h

Whatever location information is being presented is being displayed from a lookup from a publicly accessible database. It’s not a private DB that only one org has access to. This is the public library. The only cost of admission is putting in the effort to look. Google’s knowledge of you is private. It’s not comparable. Should there be efforts to collect more information to make that public information more specific? Maybe. Can you actually delete already public information from the internet? Not really. “Would you like to share what colour the sky is?” You can choose not to. The webpage can still tell you. That information is public regardless whether you provide more specific information or not

reaperducer 9y ago
"Can" vs. "should." The bottom line is that the user specifically requests not to be located, and this is a way to do exactly the opposite of what the user wants. Being technically capable of doing something is not an excuse for violating trust. Here's a web page that may help you wrap your brain around the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
- alecdibble 9y ago
  Every web request is like a letter with a to: and a from: address. Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to. Also, your argument is that because the user doesn't want it, it is unethical? I don't want to sit in traffic but that doesn't make traffic unethical. Similarly, you accuse them of 'violating trust'. It's public knowledge that any IP address can be looked up. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean your trust is violated. In the same way, just because you didn't know something was against the law doesn't make it not illegal. I am for privacy, don't get my wrong, but your comments represent one of the biggest challenges with privacy right now: the assumptions of privacy and trust. It's hard to have rational and productive arguments about privacy when people get emotional about the inner workings of the system. If you don't agree with the system, work to change it, but don't blame others for what is, at the end of the day, just a feature of how it all works. Instead, try to understand the feature and think about how we can implement future systems with similar functionality but more privacy.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    >Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to. No, it's the equivalent of asking a woman in a bar if you can call her and when she says "no," you look up her number in the phone book and call her anyway.
    - oarsinsync 9y ago
      Except she’s not forced to wear her full name on display at the bar (unlike IP addressing) and is able to opt out of being in the phone book (unlike GeoIP . DBs). I get what you’re saying and I see where you’re coming from, but to try and use this phone number analogy, it’s like telling someone what city/state they’re in based on their area code when they’ve opted to provide you no location information beyond their phone number. The phone number itself contains location information. It’s not necessary accurate information as I could easily (and do) use a 212 number wherever I am I the USA, not just in New York. Finally, we’ve had rulings about phone numbers and IP addresses. Phone numbers “belong” to the end user, not the operator, and move with the user if they want to. IP addresses “belong” to the carrier, and are non portable. In a number of cases, carriers actively provide city-level accuracy for where they’re using their IP space as it actively improves performance for end users.

reaperducer 9y ago

"Can" vs. "should." The bottom line is that the user specifically requests not to be located, and this is a way to do exactly the opposite of what the user wants. Being technically capable of doing something is not an excuse for violating trust. Here's a web page that may help you wrap your brain around the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

alecdibble 9y ago
Every web request is like a letter with a to: and a from: address. Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to. Also, your argument is that because the user doesn't want it, it is unethical? I don't want to sit in traffic but that doesn't make traffic unethical. Similarly, you accuse them of 'violating trust'. It's public knowledge that any IP address can be looked up. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean your trust is violated. In the same way, just because you didn't know something was against the law doesn't make it not illegal. I am for privacy, don't get my wrong, but your comments represent one of the biggest challenges with privacy right now: the assumptions of privacy and trust. It's hard to have rational and productive arguments about privacy when people get emotional about the inner workings of the system. If you don't agree with the system, work to change it, but don't blame others for what is, at the end of the day, just a feature of how it all works. Instead, try to understand the feature and think about how we can implement future systems with similar functionality but more privacy.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  >Your anger is equivalent to being mad that someone looked at the from: address on an envelope when you told them not to. No, it's the equivalent of asking a woman in a bar if you can call her and when she says "no," you look up her number in the phone book and call her anyway.
  - oarsinsync 9y ago
    Except she’s not forced to wear her full name on display at the bar (unlike IP addressing) and is able to opt out of being in the phone book (unlike GeoIP . DBs). I get what you’re saying and I see where you’re coming from, but to try and use this phone number analogy, it’s like telling someone what city/state they’re in based on their area code when they’ve opted to provide you no location information beyond their phone number. The phone number itself contains location information. It’s not necessary accurate information as I could easily (and do) use a 212 number wherever I am I the USA, not just in New York. Finally, we’ve had rulings about phone numbers and IP addresses. Phone numbers “belong” to the end user, not the operator, and move with the user if they want to. IP addresses “belong” to the carrier, and are non portable. In a number of cases, carriers actively provide city-level accuracy for where they’re using their IP space as it actively improves performance for end users.