3 ms·

Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you abou

Yes it matters. Or at least it matters whether the claims you make are true, and there is a difference between “had a right to” and “did”. Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to, and it’s splitting hairs whether he actually does or not.

Forgeties79 2y ago
Ok, give me remote access to your computer. I’ll send a contract saying I can sell what I find, but I haven’t done it so it’s cool and it shouldn’t be cause for alarm.
- brookst 2y ago
  It’s for sure cause for alarm, but it is a different alarm than if you gad broken into my computer. I’m not a fan of the “they did something bad, so we might as well pretend they did something worse” line of argument. It strikes me as dishonest.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    In 2024 to assume a company is not exercising virtually all the rights you’ve given them when you agreed to their terms and services - especially when they stand to make a ton of money doing so - is wild to me. These companies do not get the benefit of the doubt. I do not need proof to assume they are selling us to the highest bidder when they explicitly outline it in their terms and services and have done it time and time again. Experience has shown us that more often than not they will. I also didn’t say Nissan stole or broke into anything. My example is appropriate.
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      Has Nissan sold this data time and again? Or are you again presenting an assumption as fact. I think assuming a company is selling your data is a completely fair one. But it’s also completely fair to ask that people don’t use language that implies factual knowledge to represent those assumptions. If only to make your argument better you might evaluate your comments and see how your language is weakening it.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        At some point you’re just coming off as either way too trusting or playing the steel man. We clearly don’t see eye to eye here. My skepticism of the car manufacturers - especially the ones listed in this very damning report which includes Nissan - is warranted whether you agree or not. Feel free to sign on the dotted line. I won’t be convinced to agree to that nonsense.
      - yellow_postit 2y ago
        Agreed. The false analogy just reduces the likelihood that a real dialogue starts because it’s faux boogie men.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        It’s not a faux boogie man. We are literally having a discussion spurred by an extensive report on this exact issue.
myself248 2y ago
On the other hand, do we have any means of finding out whether they did? It's one thing if you can say "No, they definitely don't, here's what's actually sent and here's how it's used and here's the contracts limiting what's gathered". Otherwise we're all just speculating. But in the absence of solid proof, I think the history of the last several decades of surveillance shows that it's completely reasonable to assume the absolute worst. Snowden showed that the scope of government data collection was far beyond even the wildest assume-the-worst theories floated in tech media prior to the revelations, and Doubleclick (wearing its Google façade) makes the NSA look lazy. The reason these assumptions are reasonable, is that there's incentive for them to be true. Someone's willing to pay for that data. Maybe not very much, but if it costs almost nothing to collect, then it works out. The way some manager sees it, Nissan would be "leaving money on the table" if they didn't spy on their customers to the absolute maximum permitted by their EULA. This gets brought up in every internal meeting about telemetry features, I can assure you. (I've been in those meetings for a number of automakers, though not Nissan specifically, the whole industry is on board. It turns the stomach. My voice was not heard.)
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  Yeah at this point in my life I just immediately assume if I give a company a right to do something, they’re going to do it. It’s an assumption everyone should operate under.
chipsrafferty 2y ago
It's different. The leaf blower thing is something everyone has a right to do, and if it actually bothered enough people the municipality would put some restrictions on it regardless, and they didn't have to intentionally seek it out in legal scripture, and anyone can verify that they are using the leaf blower. With the cars, they went out of their way to get the right to do so, implying they want to do it, otherwise it would be a waste of money. Nobody can really verify whether they are or are not doing so, as that's confidential company information and it's not illegal (since they have to right to do so) so nobody can subpoena them to find out. So maybe they are doing it and just lying about not doing it.
haswell 2y ago
> Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to While I think it’s reasonable to split hairs about whether or not they were actually collecting the data, I think this is a really problematic analogy for a number of reasons. I think a better comparison would go something like this: “My neighbor told me he might record everything that happens in my back yard”. Your neighbor having the right to run his leaf blower constantly isn’t analogous to your neighbor directly claiming they might do something that impacts your privacy. Even if they never actually record anything, coming out and saying they might is more newsworthy than an unstated “right to be annoying” that never occurs. It’s still worth distinguishing between “my neighbor said he might” and “my neighbor is actually doing this”, but just the claim on its own is still worth paying attention to if you care about your privacy.

Forgeties79 2y ago

Ok, give me remote access to your computer. I’ll send a contract saying I can sell what I find, but I haven’t done it so it’s cool and it shouldn’t be cause for alarm.

brookst 2y ago
It’s for sure cause for alarm, but it is a different alarm than if you gad broken into my computer. I’m not a fan of the “they did something bad, so we might as well pretend they did something worse” line of argument. It strikes me as dishonest.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  In 2024 to assume a company is not exercising virtually all the rights you’ve given them when you agreed to their terms and services - especially when they stand to make a ton of money doing so - is wild to me. These companies do not get the benefit of the doubt. I do not need proof to assume they are selling us to the highest bidder when they explicitly outline it in their terms and services and have done it time and time again. Experience has shown us that more often than not they will. I also didn’t say Nissan stole or broke into anything. My example is appropriate.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    Has Nissan sold this data time and again? Or are you again presenting an assumption as fact. I think assuming a company is selling your data is a completely fair one. But it’s also completely fair to ask that people don’t use language that implies factual knowledge to represent those assumptions. If only to make your argument better you might evaluate your comments and see how your language is weakening it.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      At some point you’re just coming off as either way too trusting or playing the steel man. We clearly don’t see eye to eye here. My skepticism of the car manufacturers - especially the ones listed in this very damning report which includes Nissan - is warranted whether you agree or not. Feel free to sign on the dotted line. I won’t be convinced to agree to that nonsense.
    - yellow_postit 2y ago
      Agreed. The false analogy just reduces the likelihood that a real dialogue starts because it’s faux boogie men.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        It’s not a faux boogie man. We are literally having a discussion spurred by an extensive report on this exact issue.

myself248 2y ago

On the other hand, do we have any means of finding out whether they did? It's one thing if you can say "No, they definitely don't, here's what's actually sent and here's how it's used and here's the contracts limiting what's gathered". Otherwise we're all just speculating. But in the absence of solid proof, I think the history of the last several decades of surveillance shows that it's completely reasonable to assume the absolute worst. Snowden showed that the scope of government data collection was far beyond even the wildest assume-the-worst theories floated in tech media prior to the revelations, and Doubleclick (wearing its Google façade) makes the NSA look lazy. The reason these assumptions are reasonable, is that there's incentive for them to be true. Someone's willing to pay for that data. Maybe not very much, but if it costs almost nothing to collect, then it works out. The way some manager sees it, Nissan would be "leaving money on the table" if they didn't spy on their customers to the absolute maximum permitted by their EULA. This gets brought up in every internal meeting about telemetry features, I can assure you. (I've been in those meetings for a number of automakers, though not Nissan specifically, the whole industry is on board. It turns the stomach. My voice was not heard.)

Forgeties79 2y ago
Yeah at this point in my life I just immediately assume if I give a company a right to do something, they’re going to do it. It’s an assumption everyone should operate under.

chipsrafferty 2y ago

It's different. The leaf blower thing is something everyone has a right to do, and if it actually bothered enough people the municipality would put some restrictions on it regardless, and they didn't have to intentionally seek it out in legal scripture, and anyone can verify that they are using the leaf blower. With the cars, they went out of their way to get the right to do so, implying they want to do it, otherwise it would be a waste of money. Nobody can really verify whether they are or are not doing so, as that's confidential company information and it's not illegal (since they have to right to do so) so nobody can subpoena them to find out. So maybe they are doing it and just lying about not doing it.

haswell 2y ago

> Have I told you about my neighbor who uses a leaf blower nonstop from 7am until 8pm? Well, he doesn’t actually, be he has a right to While I think it’s reasonable to split hairs about whether or not they were actually collecting the data, I think this is a really problematic analogy for a number of reasons. I think a better comparison would go something like this: “My neighbor told me he might record everything that happens in my back yard”. Your neighbor having the right to run his leaf blower constantly isn’t analogous to your neighbor directly claiming they might do something that impacts your privacy. Even if they never actually record anything, coming out and saying they might is more newsworthy than an unstated “right to be annoying” that never occurs. It’s still worth distinguishing between “my neighbor said he might” and “my neighbor is actually doing this”, but just the claim on its own is still worth paying attention to if you care about your privacy.