2 ms·
It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used fo
by 0xy 6y ago
It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used for tracking purposes. You don't think that deserves extreme scrutiny? Do you think that statement was made by a random developer or filtered through 100 PR and legal people?
Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. Knowing that, why is it so ambiguous?
- mehrdadn 6y agoWhere did I say it doesn't deserve scrutiny? Scrutinize it all you want, I'm sure it went through lots of people before being published. "Scrutiny" is not the same thing as actually accusing them of lying though. > Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. I also don't believe this to be true (their statement seemed plain and clear enough to my eyes), but even if it were, it doesn't affect what I said above. You need actual evidence, not the mere possibility of mathematical loophole.
- 0xy 6y agoSorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Such a statement would never be made to the press without being touched by PR/legal. They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters.
- mehrdadn 6y ago> Sorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Sorry, but you're not going to. > They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters. Then say it's ambiguous, instead of saying the opposite is true, is all I'm saying. You misinform people that way.