3 ms·

By this reasoning, using guns to shoot people is completely valid; the issue is stray shots due to inadequate aim and has nothing to do with being a criminal en

By this reasoning, using guns to shoot people is completely valid; the issue is stray shots due to inadequate aim and has nothing to do with being a criminal engaged in a drug war. I'll resist the temptation to draw a parallel between "advertising services from Facebook or other companies" and a crime syndicate.

manigandham 6y ago
No, that's not the same reasoning at all. It's an irrelevant and outrageous strawman where you compared the use of advertising to "using guns ... as a criminal engaged in a drug war". Ridiculous at best and I'm not sure what temptation you resisted. If you have a real rebuttal against advertising then reply with that instead and we can discuss how technical implementations can be fraught with security mistakes and errors, regardless of industry or product.
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  The point is that "technical implementations", such as how to shoot properly, shouldn't be discussed "regardless of industry or product", such as being a gangster: sharing PII with Facebook is something most web sites should avoid, not something they should do properly.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    > "shouldn't be discussed" Why not? Technical implementations can always be discussed separately from the context they're used in, and even your extreme example of guns has perfectly valid uses in the police and military. Yet you're making the strange comparison to being "a gangster". Why? What's the point of this convoluted analogy? > "sharing PII with Facebook is something most web sites should avoid, not something they should do properly" Again, why? You seem to claim a lot without any basis. Data has valid uses, and being used properly is foundational to providing privacy.
    - HelloNurse 6y ago
      It shouldn't be controversial that not sharing sensitive data with Facebook is "foundational to providing privacy" and therefore using a Facebook tracker to fuck users needs a solid, extraordinary justification like "valid" gun use by the police and military. You seem to believe that this particular breach is accidental, but reckless incompetence on Backblaze's part isn't much better than deliberate disregard for user privacy: any online service from Facebook should raise a red flag.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - manigandham 6y ago
        If you agree that the sensitive part was in error, then you're just against sharing data with Facebook for ads? That's certainly not some unanimous global perspective as I'm sure you know, since that's their actual business used by millions of other companies.

manigandham 6y ago

No, that's not the same reasoning at all. It's an irrelevant and outrageous strawman where you compared the use of advertising to "using guns ... as a criminal engaged in a drug war". Ridiculous at best and I'm not sure what temptation you resisted. If you have a real rebuttal against advertising then reply with that instead and we can discuss how technical implementations can be fraught with security mistakes and errors, regardless of industry or product.

HelloNurse 6y ago
The point is that "technical implementations", such as how to shoot properly, shouldn't be discussed "regardless of industry or product", such as being a gangster: sharing PII with Facebook is something most web sites should avoid, not something they should do properly.
- manigandham 6y ago
  > "shouldn't be discussed" Why not? Technical implementations can always be discussed separately from the context they're used in, and even your extreme example of guns has perfectly valid uses in the police and military. Yet you're making the strange comparison to being "a gangster". Why? What's the point of this convoluted analogy? > "sharing PII with Facebook is something most web sites should avoid, not something they should do properly" Again, why? You seem to claim a lot without any basis. Data has valid uses, and being used properly is foundational to providing privacy.
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    It shouldn't be controversial that not sharing sensitive data with Facebook is "foundational to providing privacy" and therefore using a Facebook tracker to fuck users needs a solid, extraordinary justification like "valid" gun use by the police and military. You seem to believe that this particular breach is accidental, but reckless incompetence on Backblaze's part isn't much better than deliberate disregard for user privacy: any online service from Facebook should raise a red flag.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - manigandham 6y ago
      If you agree that the sensitive part was in error, then you're just against sharing data with Facebook for ads? That's certainly not some unanimous global perspective as I'm sure you know, since that's their actual business used by millions of other companies.