4 ms·

Explain "hypocrisy". As far as "overblown" goes, there's no other realm of social balance wherein concession to something means an obligation to an extreme. La

• Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Explain "hypocrisy". Recall is neither the first nor the last thing to record and store your actions and data. Why is it such a big problem? >Last, your statement falsely presupposes that most are happy with any tracking / intrusion. Most people are in fact fine with tracking, it has been demonstrated time and time again ad nauseum that the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy and especially if they are inconvenienced. As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?), it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as they don't/can't care as it's all far above their paygrades.
  • mrangle 2y ago
    >Recall is neither the first nor the last thing to record and store your actions and data. Why is it such a big problem? Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of boundaries? I feel like I'm in an argument with a psychologically abusive SO. You imply a defect in rationality via your misuse or misunderstanding of vocabulary. As what? A means of browbeating people into acceptance? Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself. It is within everyone's right, and within the bounds of rationality, to reject Recall on its qualitative differences, on the sole fact that they don't want one more tracker when they really don't want the first, or because others seem strangely over-interested in making poor yet insistent arguments in favor of it. I mean, if it's just one more tracker than why does anyone need it? Right? Or is the singular nature of Recall that makes it uniquely desirable to some the reason that it is rationally undesirable to others? Denial of that nature of Recall is what is hypocritical. >Most people are in fact fine with tracking, Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it? Except the ones that aren't, who are tend to also be against having second to second activity recorded. Right? And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here. >the commons do not fucking care about digital privacy ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded. >As for intrusions (presumably you mean attacks, whether digital or physical?) No, as the attack vs tracking difference of user data being sent to an off-site server, and then sold or otherwise, is immaterial when the user isn't aware of the nature of the data being sent if they are aware of it being sent at all. With Recall and for most users, the possibility that screenshot data would be remotely accessed certainly falls under the category of "intrusion". In spite of legalese. >it's not so much most people are fine with it so much as... it's all far above their paygrades. Boom
    • Dalewyn 2y ago
      >Not agreeing to something that one does not want, in spite of tolerating qualitatively similar yet different objects that one also does want not want, is not "hypocrisy". It's a boundary. It is hypocrisy because there is no difference. None of you have yet managed to answer what differences, if any, exist between Recall and All The Other Tracking Siphoning Things(tm) most of us either accept or tolerate. >Your need to resort to such a non-agreeable tactic, alone, should inform you that your logic is the problem if not your motive or Recall itself. I am asking you all a question and so far noone has managed to answer it. If none of you can answer what exactly about Recall makes it unacceptable unlike All The Others(tm), your logic is flawed. Again: What is the difference? I do not see any. >Do "most" people have the option of easily turning tracking completely off? Most are "fine" with it? To the former: Actually, yes; just don't use the services or software that track you. As unenforcable as EULAs are, we all agree to them and it is made explicitly clear we can reject by not perusing. To the latter: Also, yes; everyone happily uses iCloud and Google Photos and OneDrive and Dropbox and whatever else that tracks user data. To say nothing of Windows, and even Firefox (yes, Firefox phones home) that people happily use. >And who are significant enough that you feel compelled to argue with them here. Significant in the sense that apples are significant in an orchard, but apples only comprise a small portion of all trees and most trees don't care. Likewise, techies bitch in tech circles and the noise is significant, but in the world at large techies are an insignificant minority as far as whether tracking is acceptable or not is concerned. >ooph, the spicy language. I'm persuaded. Whether I can persuade you is irrelevant, the commons still do not fucking care about digital privacy. Seriously. That's the reality. It's like how the Earth will spin and keep spinning no matter what any of us do. >user data being sent to an off-site server One of Recall's biggest marketing spiels is that it's all stored and processed locally. If Microsoft violates that marketing then they're guilty of false advertising and we can absolutely throw books at them for it, but that's tangential to the collection and processing of user data.
      • johnisgood 2y ago
        Personally I do not think that there are any fundamental differences; Recall is just more "obvious" or "apparent". Plus according to someone Apple's AI thing does not record what you type into the text field inside your browser, but I really am not certain about that. All that said, I will continue using Linux with firejail (because I do not like the idea of programs sharing data in many cases).