4 ms·
It is time to make it illegal. It is clear that we need ways to keep our privacy and they are making even creeper ways to bypass. This is already 1984 level of
by motbus3 3y ago
It is time to make it illegal. It is clear that we need ways to keep our privacy and they are making even creeper ways to bypass. This is already 1984 level of privacy invasion
- pavlov 3y agoThe clocks were striking thirteen, and Winston Smith was irritated by a pop-up in the corner of his telescreen asking for permission to measure the room temperature.
- bottled_poe 3y agoBravo. Freedom is not taken with a booming voice but a tide of whispers.
- phailhaus 3y agoI think that was poking fun at OP, because the idea that asking for permission is "literally 1984" is pretty funny.
- pavlov 3y agoWell, kind of both? It was a joke, but the “tide of whispers” sentiment is not wrong either. It’s fun to imagine a “1984” prequel that would take place in an era when the Party is not full-blown totalitarian, and the telescreen pretends to be a useful information source that asks for permissions so it can better serve you. “1969”?
- jowea 3y agoWhat about "2023"?
- yakubin 3y agoAt first I read that as “Winston Churchill”, which made it sound like a Doctor Who episode.
- jowea 3y agoThe permission pop-up doesn't actually do anything obviously.
- xwdv 3y agoIf you make it illegal it vastly limits the potential for things we could do, that may not have been thought of yet. It stifles innovation.
- inetknght 3y agoIt's illegal to put cameras in bathrooms. We're already stifling innovation! It's illegal to record people without their permission, in certain jurisdictions. We're already stifling innovation! It's illegal pay money for certain services. We're already stifling innovation! You're arguing against something negative that hasn't yet happened at the cost not doing anything to prevent something negative already happening right now.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoSo do you want to ban motion sensor and webcams even in cases where the users is informed and consents about their usage?
- bombcar 3y agoThe problem is users can’t be arsed to even turn these privacy invasive settings off. So they’ll be triply unarsed to care enough to politically activate laws about it. The best hope is Apple kicking Google in the nuts because they want the ad revenue instead. God help us.
- xwdv 3y agoIf users can’t be arsed to turn off privacy settings maybe privacy isn’t as important as we think it is, or perhaps we’re willing to trade some privacy in exchange for powerful new features. The people beating the drum of user privacy might really just be doing it as a way to block competitors from getting an advantage. Weaponized Privacy.
- bombcar 3y ago
- sneak 3y agoWhy do we need a law when there is already a browser permission setting for it? Deny the access if you don't like it and let others make their own choices.
- Xelbair 3y agoBecause when DNT setting was introduced, it was instead used as another piece of data for tracking. And abuse in this space is rampant.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoA browser permission that is OFF by default and automatically, swiftly returns to that state and reveals nothing when probed in this disabled state. ...And a law, that holds browser vendors accountable when neglecting this.
- _fat_santa 3y agoThe problem with policy changes like this is that it will inevitably scoop up some kid just playing around with Web API's. If this were to be a policy change, I think we should rather require browser developers to have all sensor features (location, motion, etc) opt-in only which most browsers already do.
- throw1234651234 3y agoThe real problem is that I don't think competitor browsers are much better on privacy OR they don't have the same security. Would be happy to be proven wrong.
- barrysteve 3y agoThere should be a common English phrase for the kind of Judgement anullment (and mercy anullment) that is commonly seen online when it comes to objections against tech invasions. A red herring is often used to mean an idea that leads one astray. A red sparrow (or whatever animal) should often be used to mean a response that anulls one's idea. The kind of whatabout-ism and but-it-already-is-everywhere responses are the old slippery slope concept, practiced in real time. They do nothing to discuss the facts at hand and are a void of useful conversation. note: maybe an aussie bird, cause culturally aussies love peace, and will trick people to get it.. like Barbossa in pirates of the carribean.. the Crimson Rosella has a 'cussik-cussik' sound and a series of harsh metallic screeches. like a robot bird... https://australian.museum/learn/animals/birds/crimson-rosella/ https://australian.museum/learn/animals/birds/crimson-rosell... Red rosella - to make robotic screeches in an attempt to anull disliked ideas... (or something)
- troupo 3y agoGDPR and upcoming DMA are quite explicit about these things. HN really loves to hate those regulations and laws.
- deltarholamda 3y agoThe problem with GDPR is it doesn't seem to have done anything other than making every freaking web site have another pop-up that tells you "you gotta let us set a cookie or this site won't work". I accept there may be more teeth in the background, but nobody sees that. That's all entwined with legal maneuverings in courtrooms. What we actually see on the Internet is "everything is exactly the same, but with a new pop-up". I don't really have an answer, so it's not like I'm much help. I'm all for laws that protect, but if they don't do anything other than make things way more complicated, that's really just a boon to big tech, who can absorb the costs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Cloudef 3y agoEven more annoying is that all those cookie popups are designed with dark ux patterns where they really want you to click the "allow all" button.
- troupo 3y agoSlowly (too slowly) the tide is turning: https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come DMA should reinforce this: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act (see "Law: Not giving consent") If the actual enforcement wakes up.