4 ms·

"By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners to delive

by kartan 8y ago

"By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners to deliver relevant advertising on our site, in emails and across the Internet, to personalize content and perform site analytics. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about our use of data, your rights, and how to withdraw consent." No thank you.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mirimir 8y ago
That one didn't bother me as much as Oath's, which includes: > ... We (Oath) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. ... I mean "access your device" and "including your location"? But maybe they're just being more honest about it all than Slate is.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Well, if you actually read Slate's "privacy policy", it's pretty horrific too. It lists vast amounts of data they collect, both personal and (what they consider to be) non-personal (which can include your geolocation and browser fingerprint, apparently), and lots of ways they use it and share it; but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc. There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all that.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yeah, I should have expected that :( > ... but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc. Actually, Slate seems quite accessible via Tor. So that's an option. But I don't use HN via Tor, so switching to a Whonix VM just to read stuff, with no shared clipboard, would be painful. And as well, I don't like creating correlations, so I wouldn't want to use a Whonix VM that I used for actual work. > There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all that. I totally agree.
- wahern 8y ago
  They're being more honest. The Yahoo! security breaches combined with the takeover by Verizon mean that they're trying to transparently follow the letter of the law almost to a fault. The security breaches meant that Yahoo felt they needed to regain trust. One method of building trust is transparency and honesty. Of course, transparency doesn't work well if you're exposing behavior that is inherently untrusthworthy, but like everybody else Yahoo's bread & butter is advertisement and tracking. This is compounded by the fact that Verizon typically works in highly regulated, anti-competitive environments where you can do whatever you want without consequence provided you strictly follow the rules. This explains Yahoo's inability to appreciate why their transparency is ill conceived; why their disclosures are so matter of fact and tone deaf. The proper way to run a media company is "see no evil, hear no evil". Give your engineers a mandate to collect everything and anything, but don't tell management and legal the details so there's plausible deniability when people figure things out. Disclosures should be vague because (1) legal doesn't know anyhow and (2) you're only doing the minimum necessary to avoid jail time and class actions--there's no regulatory agency to worry about and very little civil liability in general.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    > Give your engineers a mandate to collect everything and anything, but don't tell management and legal the details so there's plausible deniability when people figure things out. I've seen exactly that, sitting in at depositions of corporate defendants' management and IT staff. Nobody seemed to know the "big picture". IT staff knew what data they were managing, and how it was handled, but had no idea how it was used. Management knew business logic, but had no clue how to interpret data that they'd given to plaintiffs.
oh_sigh 8y ago
HackerNews: a discussion forum concerning the cookie policies of posted websites.

by kartan 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mirimir 8y ago

That one didn't bother me as much as Oath's, which includes: > ... We (Oath) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. ... I mean "access your device" and "including your location"? But maybe they're just being more honest about it all than Slate is.

jfk13 8y ago
Well, if you actually read Slate's "privacy policy", it's pretty horrific too. It lists vast amounts of data they collect, both personal and (what they consider to be) non-personal (which can include your geolocation and browser fingerprint, apparently), and lots of ways they use it and share it; but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc. There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all that.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yeah, I should have expected that :( > ... but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc. Actually, Slate seems quite accessible via Tor. So that's an option. But I don't use HN via Tor, so switching to a Whonix VM just to read stuff, with no shared clipboard, would be painful. And as well, I don't like creating correlations, so I wouldn't want to use a Whonix VM that I used for actual work. > There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all that. I totally agree.
wahern 8y ago
They're being more honest. The Yahoo! security breaches combined with the takeover by Verizon mean that they're trying to transparently follow the letter of the law almost to a fault. The security breaches meant that Yahoo felt they needed to regain trust. One method of building trust is transparency and honesty. Of course, transparency doesn't work well if you're exposing behavior that is inherently untrusthworthy, but like everybody else Yahoo's bread & butter is advertisement and tracking. This is compounded by the fact that Verizon typically works in highly regulated, anti-competitive environments where you can do whatever you want without consequence provided you strictly follow the rules. This explains Yahoo's inability to appreciate why their transparency is ill conceived; why their disclosures are so matter of fact and tone deaf. The proper way to run a media company is "see no evil, hear no evil". Give your engineers a mandate to collect everything and anything, but don't tell management and legal the details so there's plausible deniability when people figure things out. Disclosures should be vague because (1) legal doesn't know anyhow and (2) you're only doing the minimum necessary to avoid jail time and class actions--there's no regulatory agency to worry about and very little civil liability in general.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > Give your engineers a mandate to collect everything and anything, but don't tell management and legal the details so there's plausible deniability when people figure things out. I've seen exactly that, sitting in at depositions of corporate defendants' management and IT staff. Nobody seemed to know the "big picture". IT staff knew what data they were managing, and how it was handled, but had no idea how it was used. Management knew business logic, but had no clue how to interpret data that they'd given to plaintiffs.

oh_sigh 8y ago

HackerNews: a discussion forum concerning the cookie policies of posted websites.