5 ms·

> I dislike how companies are not only pushing proprietary mesh networks, but also making them automatically enabled for their users and opt-out. I actually qu

by least 5y ago

> I dislike how companies are not only pushing proprietary mesh networks, but also making them automatically enabled for their users and opt-out. I actually quite like that this particular feature is opt out because the goal is to make the mesh network actually useful and not just a white paper theoretical application with zero adoption. Requiring labor of any kind will exclude much of the population from the start, which, for this particular utility, is not tenable. > It feels like the companies are piggybacking on my internet connection, hardware and electricity for free to literally power their closed network. I don't get paid a penny for it, but their shareholders sure do. You get access to the benefits of this particular mesh network, which lets you locate your Apple devices more reliably than without it. > Open mesh networks could be really cool, but instead of open networks, we get mesh networks that only allow Alexa to pump ads into your home, while excluding you, me and everyone else except Amazon and their partners from doing amazing things with the meshnets. I agree that what mesh networking is being utilized for right now is not really very close to its potential, but there's also not much reason why Amazon or Apple should open their platforms up to third parties at this time. If you want to create something useful with mesh networking you have to sell the idea to the general population. Massive corporations like Apple, Google, or Meta are at a big advantage by having a huge network of users already from which they can push their ideas to the public, but it's a significantly greater challenge for anyone without that resource. Still, I think it could be done.

FireBeyond 5y ago
> I actually quite like that this particular feature is opt out because the goal is to make the mesh network actually useful and not just a white paper theoretical application with zero adoption. Requiring labor of any kind will exclude much of the population from the start, which, for this particular utility, is not tenable. And people nearby you? Apple is draining your battery for their benefit, using your cellular data for their benefit.
- least 5y ago
  Yes, everyone who has the feature turned on is pooling their resources together to create a common utility that everyone with the feature benefits from. I fail to see how this is an issue. This is not like Apple exfiltrating data from your phone back to them that can incriminate you like the CSAM debacle that's still unresolved, this is a tool that has a quite easy to understand benefit for those that are using it. I pool the resources of using some of my battery and data and in return I get access to a giant mesh network that helps in locating my devices. If I don't want to participate in this network, I can turn it off. I get that a lot of people seem to have the issue with it being opt-out rather than opt-in. I think that this sort of feature needs to be opt-out because it better aligns with human behavior.
  - Schroedingersat 5y ago
    Except they're not aware of the cost to them so it's not actually consent, and I can't stop them from sending apple or google a message to help track me if i turn one of my bluetooth devices on.
    - least 5y ago
      What is the threshold for how informed someone must be in order to be allowed to give consent or make their own decisions here? What responsibility would you place on Apple here versus on the consumers of its devices, specifically? More than likely if you ask for more than what exists what will actually happen is that another blurb will show up in the long terms of service that most people don't read and people aren't any more enlightened about what exactly their device does.
      - Schroedingersat 5y ago
        Don't operate something you've sold to someone remotely for your own benefit with explicit opt in that is difficult to do without understanding. Full stop. Don't mine their device for data. Don't harvest anything at all from it without an explicit interaction or intentional manually configured automation. So far, far, far away from where google/apple/ms have drawn it.
        least 5y ago
        This feels like a really loose interpretation of operating something remotely. If they have a backdoor to your phone that lets them flip a switch, that's one thing... I think in this case it's turned on through a software update, which is in the control of the people using the device. That's another feature that is opt-out, by the way. Why? Because requiring input from users to update their phones results in most people not updating their phone, which is a security risk. It's not so cut and dry and being that dogmatic about it in one direction when there's clear and significant downsides to doing that way is shortsighted. Even if you prompt the user asking for permission for every single thing going on on their device, what do you think the outcome of that will be? Most people I know have tons of notifications from every app they install on their phone because they don't even look at the popup after the first couple times it appears.
agentgumshoe 5y ago
If no one would use it if it was opt-in, that says something about the actual demand for such a thing, aside the product makers.
- andybak 5y ago
  No it doesn't. It says something about network effects and the psychology of opt-in vs opt-out.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    Not the psychology so much as the behaviour. As in, I can get away with doing X by making avoiding it opt-out. The psychology, aside the decision to make an effort, I imagine as being aware and informed in terms of that decision. Which falls back to the behaviours performed to prevent that.
- least 5y ago
  It doesn't say anything about the actual demand, but about human tendency to take the path of least resistance. There are many things that might benefit me but I won't go out of my way to do, and that's the same for everyone else as well. Opt out means that I don't have to do anything but do get the benefits of that thing. What is perhaps problematic is that it's not visible enough that this feature has tradeoffs or that there is an option to opt out, or even that the feature exists, but that problem exists for all sorts of software on the phone.

by least 5y ago

FireBeyond 5y ago

> I actually quite like that this particular feature is opt out because the goal is to make the mesh network actually useful and not just a white paper theoretical application with zero adoption. Requiring labor of any kind will exclude much of the population from the start, which, for this particular utility, is not tenable. And people nearby you? Apple is draining your battery for their benefit, using your cellular data for their benefit.

least 5y ago
Yes, everyone who has the feature turned on is pooling their resources together to create a common utility that everyone with the feature benefits from. I fail to see how this is an issue. This is not like Apple exfiltrating data from your phone back to them that can incriminate you like the CSAM debacle that's still unresolved, this is a tool that has a quite easy to understand benefit for those that are using it. I pool the resources of using some of my battery and data and in return I get access to a giant mesh network that helps in locating my devices. If I don't want to participate in this network, I can turn it off. I get that a lot of people seem to have the issue with it being opt-out rather than opt-in. I think that this sort of feature needs to be opt-out because it better aligns with human behavior.
- Schroedingersat 5y ago
  Except they're not aware of the cost to them so it's not actually consent, and I can't stop them from sending apple or google a message to help track me if i turn one of my bluetooth devices on.
  - least 5y ago
    What is the threshold for how informed someone must be in order to be allowed to give consent or make their own decisions here? What responsibility would you place on Apple here versus on the consumers of its devices, specifically? More than likely if you ask for more than what exists what will actually happen is that another blurb will show up in the long terms of service that most people don't read and people aren't any more enlightened about what exactly their device does.
    - Schroedingersat 5y ago
      Don't operate something you've sold to someone remotely for your own benefit with explicit opt in that is difficult to do without understanding. Full stop. Don't mine their device for data. Don't harvest anything at all from it without an explicit interaction or intentional manually configured automation. So far, far, far away from where google/apple/ms have drawn it.
      - least 5y ago
        This feels like a really loose interpretation of operating something remotely. If they have a backdoor to your phone that lets them flip a switch, that's one thing... I think in this case it's turned on through a software update, which is in the control of the people using the device. That's another feature that is opt-out, by the way. Why? Because requiring input from users to update their phones results in most people not updating their phone, which is a security risk. It's not so cut and dry and being that dogmatic about it in one direction when there's clear and significant downsides to doing that way is shortsighted. Even if you prompt the user asking for permission for every single thing going on on their device, what do you think the outcome of that will be? Most people I know have tons of notifications from every app they install on their phone because they don't even look at the popup after the first couple times it appears.

agentgumshoe 5y ago

If no one would use it if it was opt-in, that says something about the actual demand for such a thing, aside the product makers.

andybak 5y ago
No it doesn't. It says something about network effects and the psychology of opt-in vs opt-out.
- headsoup 5y ago
  Not the psychology so much as the behaviour. As in, I can get away with doing X by making avoiding it opt-out. The psychology, aside the decision to make an effort, I imagine as being aware and informed in terms of that decision. Which falls back to the behaviours performed to prevent that.
least 5y ago
It doesn't say anything about the actual demand, but about human tendency to take the path of least resistance. There are many things that might benefit me but I won't go out of my way to do, and that's the same for everyone else as well. Opt out means that I don't have to do anything but do get the benefits of that thing. What is perhaps problematic is that it's not visible enough that this feature has tradeoffs or that there is an option to opt out, or even that the feature exists, but that problem exists for all sorts of software on the phone.