4 ms·

Yes, but on average (or equally, in total) it is 1000 times less sensitive than reading messages and 1000000 times less sensitive than selling that data.

sk0g 6y ago
Where are all these numbers coming from? Would you be ok with a publicly broadcasted CCTV in your bedroom, since one in your bathroom would be 1e4 times worse?
- lightgreen 6y ago
  No, but broadcasting cctv pointing to the skies above my home would not be a huge issue. Continuing the analogy, in skies broadcasting the issue would be how they could connect to my camera, rather than privacy which is also violated and also a tiny issue. Or another analogy. If Google threatened to blow a nuclear bomb over Manhattan, Google gaining knowledge about competitors would not be an issue. Yeah, Google spying for other apps is bad. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. (Also, please don’t use ad hominem arguments, the conversation becomes emotionally loaded rather than coldly rational.)
  - sk0g 6y ago
    You're using random numbers and referring to them as some universally accepted truths, in order to justify smaller transgressions. How is that fuel for a rational conversation? Edit: also, your entire justification for this spying is that it could be worse. That reads to me like an ad hominem attack in itself.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > You're using random numbers I use some numbers which are my estimations, and not random numbers. I could explain how I made these estimations if you asked (Short version by definition of risk which is damage multiplied by probability). Also if you disagree with these estimations, you are welcome to suggest your better estimations, how these three scenarios compare to each other. > your entire justification for this spying is that it could be worse. That reads to me like an ad hominem attack in itself. It would be ad hominem attack if I said it could be worse for you. But I didn’t, and not everything is about you, so my argument wasn’t ad hominem. Also, probably best to admit this conversation is derailed and stop it for the good.
      - jevgeni 6y ago
        My second most favorite techbro meme is people pretending to be rational, when they are 100% emotional.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    No, but broadcasting cctv pointing to the skies above my home would not be a huge issue. "Within 38 hours of resuming transmission, the flag was located by a collaboration of 4chan users, who used airplane contrails, flight tracking, celestial navigation, and other techniques to determine that it was located in Greeneville, Tennessee.... after a field at the location was set on fire, the artists were again forced to relocate the project." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaBeouf,_R%C3%B6nkk%C3%B6_%26_Turner#HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US,_2017_%E2%80%93_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaBeouf,_R%C3%B6nkk%C3%B6_%26_... And it gets better (at another location): "In the early hours of October 25, 2017, vandals unsuccessfully attempted to set fire to the flag using a flaming drone, before crashing the remotely-piloted aircraft." Never underestimate how much can be gleaned from leaked information, or the extent to which harm can be done with very little information.

sk0g 6y ago

Where are all these numbers coming from? Would you be ok with a publicly broadcasted CCTV in your bedroom, since one in your bathroom would be 1e4 times worse?

lightgreen 6y ago
No, but broadcasting cctv pointing to the skies above my home would not be a huge issue. Continuing the analogy, in skies broadcasting the issue would be how they could connect to my camera, rather than privacy which is also violated and also a tiny issue. Or another analogy. If Google threatened to blow a nuclear bomb over Manhattan, Google gaining knowledge about competitors would not be an issue. Yeah, Google spying for other apps is bad. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. (Also, please don’t use ad hominem arguments, the conversation becomes emotionally loaded rather than coldly rational.)
- sk0g 6y ago
  You're using random numbers and referring to them as some universally accepted truths, in order to justify smaller transgressions. How is that fuel for a rational conversation? Edit: also, your entire justification for this spying is that it could be worse. That reads to me like an ad hominem attack in itself.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > You're using random numbers I use some numbers which are my estimations, and not random numbers. I could explain how I made these estimations if you asked (Short version by definition of risk which is damage multiplied by probability). Also if you disagree with these estimations, you are welcome to suggest your better estimations, how these three scenarios compare to each other. > your entire justification for this spying is that it could be worse. That reads to me like an ad hominem attack in itself. It would be ad hominem attack if I said it could be worse for you. But I didn’t, and not everything is about you, so my argument wasn’t ad hominem. Also, probably best to admit this conversation is derailed and stop it for the good.
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      My second most favorite techbro meme is people pretending to be rational, when they are 100% emotional.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- nitrogen 6y ago
  No, but broadcasting cctv pointing to the skies above my home would not be a huge issue. "Within 38 hours of resuming transmission, the flag was located by a collaboration of 4chan users, who used airplane contrails, flight tracking, celestial navigation, and other techniques to determine that it was located in Greeneville, Tennessee.... after a field at the location was set on fire, the artists were again forced to relocate the project." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaBeouf,_R%C3%B6nkk%C3%B6_%26_Turner#HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US,_2017_%E2%80%93_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaBeouf,_R%C3%B6nkk%C3%B6_%26_... And it gets better (at another location): "In the early hours of October 25, 2017, vandals unsuccessfully attempted to set fire to the flag using a flaming drone, before crashing the remotely-piloted aircraft." Never underestimate how much can be gleaned from leaked information, or the extent to which harm can be done with very little information.