3 ms·
The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls". I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a mor
by jonas21 5y ago
The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls".
I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a more than 7,000-word privacy policy with the exact same pitfalls.
- Collecting IP address: check
- Collecting geo-location and device identifiers: check
- Cross-device tracking: check
- Tracking referring and exit URLs: check
- Third-party cookies for ad targeting: check
In addition, the Times' privacy policy allows it to collect a whole bunch of other information about you - for example they can collect your "race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, religious affiliation, military or veteran status, nationality, ancestry or ethnicity, and political opinions" or buy it from data brokers and use that to serve you ads or sell it to whomever they please.
Now I'm not suggesting that the Times shouldn't point out privacy flaws in other companies' products. But perhaps a sentence or two disclosing that they have the same flaws would be in order.
- IshKebab 5y agoThe LA Times is not a car park.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- systemvoltage 5y agoWhat does LA Times have to do with parking app? Why this misdirection?
- jonas21 5y agoThis is an article in the LA Times by a columnist who works for the LA Times.
- systemvoltage 5y ago100% agree but let's discuss it in its own context though. Here were are talking about the Parking App.
- colonwqbang 5y agoThe LA times is the website behind the article linked in this thread. They are trying to frame this behaviour as a bad thing, but they treat their own readers exactly the same way.
- systemvoltage 5y agoThe author of the article probably has no clue what the WebDev team at LA Times is doing or what the advertisement team is working on. Even if they do, they're totally a separate topic of discussion and has nothing to do with the content of the article.
- geofft 5y agoCan you suggest a news outlet without an unacceptable privacy policy that the author could go work at instead? (Any plausible definition of "news outlet" works here, as long as it pays the author and reaches an audience.)
- jonas21 5y agoI can't off the top of my head. Can you? I mean it's almost as if targeted advertising were a remarkably effective way to fund things that people want but don't like paying for, whether it's journalism or parking.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]