4 ms·

But why one companies and not the other in terms of trust? It’s not like there are inherently different types of people working at one company vs the other. I’m

But why one companies and not the other in terms of trust? It’s not like there are inherently different types of people working at one company vs the other. I’m curious.

bigyikes 5y ago
Tesla doesn’t make money via ad targeting and sales.
- mysterydip 5y ago
  Yet. As soon as data is stored/archived, it can be used later for any purpose. Even if the original company has no desire to do so, acquisitions/mergers/sales/trusted-third-parties could.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The world is full of trade offs. Stuff that might happen in the future is less important than stuff that’s definitely happening today.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Time value of progress if you will.
  - JoshCole 5y ago
    No, stored data cannot be later used for any purpose. In recent years there have been numerous laws and regulations passed concerning data rights and privacy. If you get consent for data usage in one way, but then use it in a way that differs with what the user consented to, that isn't in compliance with the law. It would be fairer to say that even if the original company desperately had the desire to do so the legally required privacy compliance officer would reject their ability to do so. This is especially true at the bigger tech companies wherein they have things like external audits of their privacy compliance policies. So why is it that so much of Hacker News as a community seems convinced that things aren't like this? In the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling he talks about ten reasons that people get things wrong. One of them is that people assume that things stay the same rather than changing over time. One of the examples that he used for this is the widely held incorrect belief of a sharp distinction between third world and western countries. While there was once a sharp divide, the actual disparity greatly diminished. However, the legacy of that disparity continued to exist in the minds of people who weren't aware of the shifting distributions. As a result of these sort of shifting distributions one of the things he encourages in the book is regularly refreshing knowledge on a subject. I think something similar is happening here. A kind of nhilistic worldview in which things don't improve leads to people not updating their understanding of the world that changed in response to their frustration.
    - mysterydip 5y ago
      Your point is valid; however, I would say that something being legally possible and technically possible are two different things. I think there have been several data breaches in the past couple years that have shown data to be kept or used beyond its assumed intended purpose. Even if the company itself followed the law completely, there's nothing technically stopping a bad actor (internal or external) from doing whatever they want with it if they access it.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Perfection shouldn’t be the enemy of improvement.

But why one companies and not the other in terms of trust? It’s not like there are inherently different types of people working at one company vs the other. I’m curious.

bigyikes 5y ago

Tesla doesn’t make money via ad targeting and sales.

mysterydip 5y ago
Yet. As soon as data is stored/archived, it can be used later for any purpose. Even if the original company has no desire to do so, acquisitions/mergers/sales/trusted-third-parties could.
- Retric 5y ago
  The world is full of trade offs. Stuff that might happen in the future is less important than stuff that’s definitely happening today.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Time value of progress if you will.
- JoshCole 5y ago
  No, stored data cannot be later used for any purpose. In recent years there have been numerous laws and regulations passed concerning data rights and privacy. If you get consent for data usage in one way, but then use it in a way that differs with what the user consented to, that isn't in compliance with the law. It would be fairer to say that even if the original company desperately had the desire to do so the legally required privacy compliance officer would reject their ability to do so. This is especially true at the bigger tech companies wherein they have things like external audits of their privacy compliance policies. So why is it that so much of Hacker News as a community seems convinced that things aren't like this? In the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling he talks about ten reasons that people get things wrong. One of them is that people assume that things stay the same rather than changing over time. One of the examples that he used for this is the widely held incorrect belief of a sharp distinction between third world and western countries. While there was once a sharp divide, the actual disparity greatly diminished. However, the legacy of that disparity continued to exist in the minds of people who weren't aware of the shifting distributions. As a result of these sort of shifting distributions one of the things he encourages in the book is regularly refreshing knowledge on a subject. I think something similar is happening here. A kind of nhilistic worldview in which things don't improve leads to people not updating their understanding of the world that changed in response to their frustration.
  - mysterydip 5y ago
    Your point is valid; however, I would say that something being legally possible and technically possible are two different things. I think there have been several data breaches in the past couple years that have shown data to be kept or used beyond its assumed intended purpose. Even if the company itself followed the law completely, there's nothing technically stopping a bad actor (internal or external) from doing whatever they want with it if they access it.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Perfection shouldn’t be the enemy of improvement.