5 ms·

Let me guess "opt-in" means checked by default and hidden 12 menus deep. Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this"

Let me guess "opt-in" means checked by default and hidden 12 menus deep. Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently). Or opt-in is stored in some database somewhere and might "accidentally be misread" due to a "bug". If they want real-opt-in then it should be a SMS message at the time they want to know, and a phone-number you can reach out to for more information. This would give an audit trail at the very least.

Barbing 1y ago
Good bet. What’s the Comcast story? (just did a quick search)
- Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
  was on HN a few weeks back. imaging through wifi and was auto enabled for their routers.
  - tzs 1y ago
    That can’t be what they are thinking of because (1) it is not enabled by default and (2) and is not associated with any price changes.
    - Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726 relevant quotes: Xfinity won't give folks in certain locales (maybe everywhere in the US?) unlimited bandwidth unless they use their modem/router. This seems like a good reason that practice should be illegal. AzzyHN 19 days ago | parent | next [–] If you want to remove the 1.2TB data cap, you can either pay $25/mo and get Xfinity's gateway router "included" OR pay $30/mo to use your own modem/router.
      - tzs 1y ago
        To recap, we are trying to figure out what someone meant when they said: >> Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently). We need something where they said rates are going up, but said you could keep your old price if you agreed to something. You suggested it was the "imaging through wifi and was auto enabled for their routers". To fit what we are looking for it would have to be that Comcast put that on their routers and enabled it and raised their rates, but said that if you kept it enabled you could keep the old rate. That doesn't fit because (1) they made it available on their routers but you have to explicitly enable it and (2) whether or not you enable it does not affect your price at all. The way they price unlimited data, $30/month if bought separately, or bundled with one of their routers for $25/month is annoying, but doesn't fit what we are looking for because the person said they are talking about something done recently. Unlimited has been handled that way for ages. They did recently announce a new set of 4 plans that are nationwide and for new customers replace their olds plans. These plans make a significant change to unlimited and to modem/router rental. Current customers can switch to the new plans if they want. But I don't think this is what he was thinking of. The new plans are 300 Mbps, 500 Mbps, 1 Gbps, and 2 Gbps no contract plans. Currently you can get them with 1 or 5 year price guarantees, but as I said they are no contract plans so you are not locking yourself into staying with Comcast. I'm not sure why anyone would not choose the price guarantee option. For new users in my area the price without a guarantee is $80, $95, $110, and $140, respectively. With the 1 year guarantee those $40, $55, $70, and $100. (This all assumes you go paperless and use autopay--add $10 is not). With the 5 year guarantee those are $55, $70, $85, and $115. I'm an existing customer on a plan that is $69/month with 400 Mpbs download. To switch to the new plans without the guarantee the price is $70, $85, $100, $140. For the first 3 that is also the price with the 1 or 5 year guarantees. For the 2 gig plan it is $100 with the 1 year guarantee and $115 with the 5 year guarantee. All of these new plans are unlimited data. All of them include modem/router. You are not required to use the modem/router they provide. You can use your own, and you will get unlimited data. Whether you use theirs or yours does not affect the price. I don't think this is what he was thinking of, because existing users can keep their existing plans. They aren't raising prices on the old plans and saying "switch to the new plans if you want to keep the old price" so it doesn't fit. In fact it is more the opposite. Take my case, currently paying $69/month with a 1.2 GB cap and using my own modem. If I want to add unlimited to my current plan that would add $30/month, bringing it $99/month. If I switch to the 500 Mbps new plan and continue using my modem [1] that would get me a 25% speed boost and unlimited and save me $14/month over going unlimited on the old plan. [1] I'd probably use their modem. Mine is old and doesn't support the higher upload speeds the Comcast rolled out a while back. My current plan, and the non-gig new plans, can do 100 Mbps up, but my modem can only do 35.
- zug_zug 1y ago
  My comcast story is I have xfinity, and at some point the rate went from 80 to 120, and I called them on the phone about it, and they said "I've sent you a new user-agreement where if you agree and sign up on this link it's only $80 again. I read the link it basically said you they can 'share' my browsing data with 'partners' and such". Really offended me on principle, but not $40 a month level offended, so I signed it.
wslh 1y ago
Also any update resets your selected options.
- OldfieldFund 1y ago
  And the updates are silent.
bartread 1y ago
We have a number of Ring devices and are overall happy with them but your 12 menus deep comment is on the money. Even workaday settings for devices are scattered haphazardly hither and thither through the many pages of their app’s interface and I regularly find myself having to Google for the location of settings. It’s crying out for, at least, some sort of smart search box. So “hard to find” for something like this is practically guaranteed.
- noisy_boy 1y ago
  I think there is an untapped market for providing "simplified" interface to important settings (e.g. privacy/security related) of various apps. Sort of a user-friendly settings-api for other apps' settings.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 1y ago
    One of the best plugins I have in my browser automatically works through those cookie banners to select the least invasive option. The speed and way that it simplifies the process is fantastic.
    - jimbosis 1y ago
      May I ask the name of the plugin, please?
      - esterin 1y ago
        Pretty sure the comment is referring to https://consentomatic.au.dk/ https://consentomatic.au.dk/
      - mortos 1y ago
        Here's some options Consent-O-Matic I still don't care about cookies uBlock Origin has some filter lists to enable
    - tempnew 1y ago
      But if everyone used that, wouldn’t it just encourage websites to get even more sleazy with those infernal cookie menus because instead of a human being forced to click through “performance cookies” vs. “cookies for ad targeting” vs. “cookies you really need” vs. “cookies you probably want” vs. “cookies that seem like the opposite thing to what they actually are” dark pattern web designs, your extension is hiding that burden (and sleaziness) from you.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
SMS isn't viable, this is about *realtime*--the cops are trying to use cameras to find or follow somebody. And the reality is such cameras are designed to be pointed at public spaces. So what if the cops can see it? Using technology to expose that which is otherwise invisible should require a warrant, but I don't mind technology that simply provides eyeballs on what's public anyway. (Note that I feel differently about security cameras in general--they are often pointed at non-public spaces and access should be opt-in on a camera by camera basis. Cameras covering the front entrances, fine; cameras covering back entrances, ask or get a warrant!)
- ThunderSizzle 1y ago
  If the government wants access to a camera indefinitely, they should have written permission from the owner directly. It shouldn't be through a third party. Or put up their own cameras on the street.

Barbing 1y ago

Good bet. What’s the Comcast story? (just did a quick search)

Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
was on HN a few weeks back. imaging through wifi and was auto enabled for their routers.
- tzs 1y ago
  That can’t be what they are thinking of because (1) it is not enabled by default and (2) and is not associated with any price changes.
  - Tokumei-no-hito 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726 relevant quotes: Xfinity won't give folks in certain locales (maybe everywhere in the US?) unlimited bandwidth unless they use their modem/router. This seems like a good reason that practice should be illegal. AzzyHN 19 days ago | parent | next [–] If you want to remove the 1.2TB data cap, you can either pay $25/mo and get Xfinity's gateway router "included" OR pay $30/mo to use your own modem/router.
    - tzs 1y ago
      To recap, we are trying to figure out what someone meant when they said: >> Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently). We need something where they said rates are going up, but said you could keep your old price if you agreed to something. You suggested it was the "imaging through wifi and was auto enabled for their routers". To fit what we are looking for it would have to be that Comcast put that on their routers and enabled it and raised their rates, but said that if you kept it enabled you could keep the old rate. That doesn't fit because (1) they made it available on their routers but you have to explicitly enable it and (2) whether or not you enable it does not affect your price at all. The way they price unlimited data, $30/month if bought separately, or bundled with one of their routers for $25/month is annoying, but doesn't fit what we are looking for because the person said they are talking about something done recently. Unlimited has been handled that way for ages. They did recently announce a new set of 4 plans that are nationwide and for new customers replace their olds plans. These plans make a significant change to unlimited and to modem/router rental. Current customers can switch to the new plans if they want. But I don't think this is what he was thinking of. The new plans are 300 Mbps, 500 Mbps, 1 Gbps, and 2 Gbps no contract plans. Currently you can get them with 1 or 5 year price guarantees, but as I said they are no contract plans so you are not locking yourself into staying with Comcast. I'm not sure why anyone would not choose the price guarantee option. For new users in my area the price without a guarantee is $80, $95, $110, and $140, respectively. With the 1 year guarantee those $40, $55, $70, and $100. (This all assumes you go paperless and use autopay--add $10 is not). With the 5 year guarantee those are $55, $70, $85, and $115. I'm an existing customer on a plan that is $69/month with 400 Mpbs download. To switch to the new plans without the guarantee the price is $70, $85, $100, $140. For the first 3 that is also the price with the 1 or 5 year guarantees. For the 2 gig plan it is $100 with the 1 year guarantee and $115 with the 5 year guarantee. All of these new plans are unlimited data. All of them include modem/router. You are not required to use the modem/router they provide. You can use your own, and you will get unlimited data. Whether you use theirs or yours does not affect the price. I don't think this is what he was thinking of, because existing users can keep their existing plans. They aren't raising prices on the old plans and saying "switch to the new plans if you want to keep the old price" so it doesn't fit. In fact it is more the opposite. Take my case, currently paying $69/month with a 1.2 GB cap and using my own modem. If I want to add unlimited to my current plan that would add $30/month, bringing it $99/month. If I switch to the 500 Mbps new plan and continue using my modem [1] that would get me a 25% speed boost and unlimited and save me $14/month over going unlimited on the old plan. [1] I'd probably use their modem. Mine is old and doesn't support the higher upload speeds the Comcast rolled out a while back. My current plan, and the non-gig new plans, can do 100 Mbps up, but my modem can only do 35.
zug_zug 1y ago
My comcast story is I have xfinity, and at some point the rate went from 80 to 120, and I called them on the phone about it, and they said "I've sent you a new user-agreement where if you agree and sign up on this link it's only $80 again. I read the link it basically said you they can 'share' my browsing data with 'partners' and such". Really offended me on principle, but not $40 a month level offended, so I signed it.

wslh 1y ago

Also any update resets your selected options.

OldfieldFund 1y ago
And the updates are silent.

bartread 1y ago

We have a number of Ring devices and are overall happy with them but your 12 menus deep comment is on the money. Even workaday settings for devices are scattered haphazardly hither and thither through the many pages of their app’s interface and I regularly find myself having to Google for the location of settings. It’s crying out for, at least, some sort of smart search box. So “hard to find” for something like this is practically guaranteed.

noisy_boy 1y ago
I think there is an untapped market for providing "simplified" interface to important settings (e.g. privacy/security related) of various apps. Sort of a user-friendly settings-api for other apps' settings.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 1y ago
  One of the best plugins I have in my browser automatically works through those cookie banners to select the least invasive option. The speed and way that it simplifies the process is fantastic.
  - jimbosis 1y ago
    May I ask the name of the plugin, please?
    - esterin 1y ago
      Pretty sure the comment is referring to https://consentomatic.au.dk/ https://consentomatic.au.dk/
    - mortos 1y ago
      Here's some options Consent-O-Matic I still don't care about cookies uBlock Origin has some filter lists to enable
  - tempnew 1y ago
    But if everyone used that, wouldn’t it just encourage websites to get even more sleazy with those infernal cookie menus because instead of a human being forced to click through “performance cookies” vs. “cookies for ad targeting” vs. “cookies you really need” vs. “cookies you probably want” vs. “cookies that seem like the opposite thing to what they actually are” dark pattern web designs, your extension is hiding that burden (and sleaziness) from you.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

SMS isn't viable, this is about *realtime*--the cops are trying to use cameras to find or follow somebody. And the reality is such cameras are designed to be pointed at public spaces. So what if the cops can see it? Using technology to expose that which is otherwise invisible should require a warrant, but I don't mind technology that simply provides eyeballs on what's public anyway. (Note that I feel differently about security cameras in general--they are often pointed at non-public spaces and access should be opt-in on a camera by camera basis. Cameras covering the front entrances, fine; cameras covering back entrances, ask or get a warrant!)

ThunderSizzle 1y ago
If the government wants access to a camera indefinitely, they should have written permission from the owner directly. It shouldn't be through a third party. Or put up their own cameras on the street.