4 ms·
Informing people only helps if they have a choice whether or not to use the app/service. In many cases, people are tracked by services they cannot really avoid
by dbrgn 3y ago
Informing people only helps if they have a choice whether or not to use the app/service.
In many cases, people are tracked by services they cannot really avoid. One example is the German "Deutsche Bahn" app, which is full of trackers. Some organizations are now trying to fight this using legal means. Another example was the Covid vaccine registration page in my canton in Switzerland, where Google Analytics was being used (right on the page with my sensitive medical information). It wasn't even being mentioned in the privacy policy.
We have laws that say what's legal and what's illegal. If something is illegal, those laws should be enforced. Especially when users have no choice.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago> Informing people only helps if they have a choice whether or not to use the app/service. People always have a choice. Blinded by comfort, convenience and other "first world problems" they may not immediately recognise it as a choice, but by historical standards they absolutely always have one.
- AA-BA-94-2A-56 3y agoGood grief. This is like saying driving to work is a choice because it takes only 45 minutes, but you could opt for a three hour walk instead. Because a potential solution exists in which people can have the optimal solution with no drawbacks— why not have it. It isn’t “convenience” and other “first world problems” to realise that you need to use certain software to function in society with few trade offs. The privacy-invading nature of many pieces of software isn’t innate. It’s a choice, and it could easily be regulated. People shouldn’t have to pay with their data.