6 ms·
> "shouldn't be discussed" Why not? Technical implementations can always be discussed separately from the context they're used in, and even your extreme exampl
by 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 agoIt 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 agoIf 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.