7 ms·
Is there still anyone competent that "doubt" so? As long as data transit through their infrastructure, in security, we must always assume that it's recorded (an
by pixel_popping 7mo ago
Is there still anyone competent that "doubt" so? As long as data transit through their infrastructure, in security, we must always assume that it's recorded (and later-on, eventually used), it has nothing to do with "settings".
- tlibert 7mo agoIf a user has an "opt-out" button or signal it should be wired up to a system that functions as such. This is just a software engineering, you could vibe-code a fix in ten minutes.
- Zetaphor 7mo agoYou are assuming this was simply a development oversight and not part of a larger systemic issue
- tlibert 7mo agoOh, I very much am not.
- pixel_popping 7mo agoExactly, this is wanted, why would Google not exploit your data "opted-out"? That makes no-sense from their business point of view.
- pixel_popping 7mo agoOpt-out still goes through their servers, which means unsecure. We use encryption everywhere to not trust the middle layer, if it transits somewhere in cleartext, then it's logged and eventually used later-on. I genuinely believe that people are insane to think otherwise, proof is that there has been millions(billions?) issued in fines for non-respect of this specific issue, why are people still having "hope"? It doesn't make sense, it's THERE, it's in THEIR DB. The same goes for LLMs of course, every prompts is recorded and will be used, be sure of that.