[Discussion] technology, ads, data collection, privacy, and you

discussion spurred by a discussion on advertising over in the windows 10 thread , discussion need not be restricted to windows 10.

How comfortable are you with the increasingly opt-in by default or 'if you don't like it don't use it' policies of companies out to collect every bit of information about you and what you do with their service or device, marketing things to you or adjusting your media and search results based on that information, placing ads even in stuff you've paid for, etc.

I think it's unfortunate that over time all the options are likely to go this route so there really won't be much option other than disconnecting, which is increasingly nonviable in modern life. As 'smart' devices continue take off I think we'll see more and more of this.

I'm generally tolerant of things that are defaulted to "on" as long as they present me with the choice to disable it at initial setup time. I get extremely angry when stuff gets rolled out defaulted to "opt-in" after initial setup.

Facebook was the worst at this. I don't use Facebook, but I created a page just so others couldn't pretend to be me, and so I could stop hearing "oh my god you don't use Facebook?!" every time I met some friend-of-a-friend who wanted to add me. Seemed like every month I had to log in to the thing to hit my settings page and untick every new anti-privacy feature they just added. At some point I gave up, so I imagine by now every time someone posts a picture with my face in it it gets automatically tagged and shared to everyone within 7 degrees of separation.

On the Windows 10 front that spawned this thread, I do find that people apply a double standard with MS/Apple, but I'll freely admit that I'm biased in that area.

I don't particularly mind that "hey, listen" popups and banners are showing up in operating systems, because some people do benefit from them. I just really wish that there was a single, global setting for "I am an adept. Go away. Do not ever bother me with anything, ever, even new things that you think are sexy or important two years from now."

I don't feel I have a double standard but I'm primarily a Mac user. On Apple's side, coming from XBL I was excited about the possibility of Gamecenter. Moments after creating my account and adding all my online contacts I realised I was unwittingly sharing my real name with everyone. Not something that was made clear on setup.

I don't put Apple on a golden pedestal when it comes to protecting privacy.

I dislike the auto opt-in that seems to be default, instead of the other way around.

I've started to actively not use services from MS, FB and Google.
Switched to Ubuntu, which was quite the performance hit and my gaming library shrunk by quite a bit.
Fb account deleted
Gmail account still there, but have a new email account with tutanota. Taking my time switching registration information everywhere. And when I'm pretty sure I got it all, then gmail also gets the boot.

Have Signal for texting, video chat and chat. But not enough ppl on it now. And at work (Navy) they use
whatsapp so much right now, it's crazy (and very unsecure!). Still in training, after that, I will review if I will
keep whatsapp or not.

I think the only real change we can make is to create an efficient blocking system for at least some of this info, and sell it ourselves. The tech is not going away; consumers need a way to monetize it, just like content creators and advertisers and corporations.

Aral Balkan has written an interesting piece about the internet and privacy/data gathering:
We didn’t lose control – it was stolen

I go to great effort to defeat surveillance. And it's not because I think they're listening to me specifically, but to help protect those who are being targeted unfairly. The harder a target I am, the less hard targets stand out.

In essence, every time I can, I use an envelope to send my letters, instead of jotting them on postcards. Why? Not because I'm worried about what I'm writing on the postcards, but because people sending envelopes shouldn't stand out.

I'm being super privacy conscious to help protect everyone else, not me so much.

Malor wrote:

I go to great effort to defeat surveillance. And it's not because I think they're listening to me specifically, but to help protect those who are being targeted unfairly. The harder a target I am, the less hard targets stand out.

In essence, every time I can, I use an envelope to send my letters, instead of jotting them on postcards. Why? Not because I'm worried about what I'm writing on the postcards, but because people sending envelopes shouldn't stand out.

I'm being super privacy conscious to help protect everyone else, not me so much.

Sounds like something a super secret spy would say.

Nomad VS Malor!
IMAGE(https://images7.alphacoders.com/480/480733.png)

Red Flag Windows: Microsoft modifies Windows OS for Chinese government

China has long been both a huge lure and a thorn in the side for Microsoft. Massive piracy of Windows XP, a decade-long effort to replace Windows entirely with a home-grown Linux variant called Red Flag and an OpenOffice variant called RedOffice, and a ban on Windows 8 for government use following the leak by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden of information on National Security Agency spying all have combined to hinder Microsoft in the Chinese market. But now Microsoft—in partnership with the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group (CETC)—is preparing to reboot its relationship with Beijing, thanks to a modified version of Windows produced specifically for China, Dow Jones Newswires reports.

This seems like the right thread for this: Congress Moves to Strike Internet Privacy Rules From Obama Era

The move means a company like Verizon or Comcast can continue tracking and sharing people’s browsing and app activity without asking their permission. An individual’s data collected by these companies also does not need to be secured with “reasonable measures” against hackers. The privacy rules, which had sought to address these issues, were scheduled to go into effect at the end of this year.

It's crazy how they just think they are entitled to that information AND can resell it.
Where are the governments when you need them....

Going to look into a reliable VPN.

The First Horseman of the Privacy Apocalypse Has Already Arrived: Verizon Announces Plans to Install Spyware on All Its Android Phones

Within days of Congress repealing online privacy protections, Verizon has announced new plans to install software on customers’ devices to track what apps customers have downloaded. With this spyware, Verizon will be able to sell ads to you across the Internet based on things like which bank you use and whether you’ve downloaded a fertility app.

Verizon’s use of “AppFlash”—an app launcher and web search utility that Verizon will be rolling out to their subscribers’ Android devices “in the coming weeks”—is just the latest display of wireless carriers’ stunning willingness to compromise the security and privacy of their customers by installing spyware on end devices.

The AppFlash Privacy Policy published by Verizon states that the app can be used to

“collect information about your device and your use of the AppFlash services. This information includes your mobile number, device identifiers, device type and operating system, and information about the AppFlash features and services you use and your interactions with them. We also access information about the list of apps you have on your device.”

Troubling as it may be to collect intimate details about what apps you have installed, the policy also illustrates Verizon’s intent to gather location and contact information:

“AppFlash also collects information about your device’s precise location from your device operating system as well as contact information you store on your device.”

And what will Verizon use all of this information for? Why, targeted advertising on third-party websites, of course:

“AppFlash information may be shared within the Verizon family of companies, including companies like AOL who may use it to help provide more relevant advertising within the AppFlash experiences and in other places, including non-Verizon sites, services and devices.”

In other words, our prediction that mobile Internet providers would start installing spyware on their customers’ phones has come true, less than 48 hours after Congress sold out your personal data to companies like Comcast and AT&T. With the announcement of AppFlash, Verizon has made clear that it intends to start monetizing its customers’ private data as soon as possible.

It would be awesome if companies could at least pretend like they weren't out to f*ck us. Couldn't they wait a month?

Let's face it, even under the Obama ruling they would just have given "notice" via super fine print hidden somewhere in a huge contract that likely no one would ever read. Implied acceptance on use, etc.

see also facebook and/or google TOU.

Or consider for example the warnings about your cell phone exceeding FCC guidelines for exposure if under 15mm from your body, for example if the phone is on in your pocket, how many people do you know who have read that part of their phone manual (or any part for that matter)? of those who have how many do you know who actually adjust behavior accordingly? While it's frightening that the ISPs wont even have to give that much notice to sell our data I suspect the reality is the average consumer would never have noticed or cared about any sort of notice given to them.

Can you uninstall the app?

WizKid wrote:

Can you uninstall the app?

Or block it's access to services in the OS settings?

Antichulius wrote:
WizKid wrote:

Can you uninstall the app?

Or block it's access to services in the OS settings?

From what I heard on a podcast: you can opt out, but default is opt in.
You cannot delete the app, which makes me doubt that opting out will actually do something.

Sparhawk wrote:

It's crazy how they just think they are entitled to that information AND can resell it.
Where are the governments when you need them....

Standing behind the corporations with their hands out and a greedy glint in their eye.

I posted this in the general political news thread, but then I remembered that this thread exists...

Why one Republican voted to kill privacy rules: “Nobody has to use the Internet”

A Republican lawmaker who voted to eliminate Internet privacy rules said, "Nobody's got to use the Internet" when asked why ISPs should be able to use and share their customers' Web browsing history for advertising purposes.

US Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) was hosting a town hall meeting when a constituent asked about the decision to eliminate privacy rules. The person in the audience was disputing the Republican argument that ISPs shouldn't face stricter requirements than websites such as Facebook.

"Facebook is not comparable to an ISP. I do not have to go on Facebook," the town hall meeting attendee said. But when it comes to Internet service providers, the person said, "I have one choice. I don't have to go on Google. My ISP provider is different than those providers."

That's when Sensenbrenner said, "Nobody's got to use the Internet." He praised ISPs for "invest[ing] an awful lot of money in having almost universal service now." He then said, "I don't think it's my job to tell you that you cannot get advertising for your information being sold. My job, I think, is to tell you that you have the opportunity to do it, and then you take it upon yourself to make the choice."

What color is the sky, in Sensenbrenner's world?

I'm pretty sure that in Sensenbrenner's world color hasn't been invented yet.

That gave me flash backs to every time some decrepit f*ck told me kids these days just need to learn responsibility, because he put himself through medical and law school by selling his horse and becoming a journeyman under the local abacus maker, there's no reason we can't do the same..

He'll likely take a page from Trump.... "Who knew the Internet was so important these days?"

Uber's been in the news lately. Not for what you'd expect, but because it turns out that they're even worse than I thought they were:

NY Times wrote:

SAN FRANCISCO — Travis Kalanick, the chief executive of Uber, visited Apple’s headquarters in early 2015 to meet with Timothy D. Cook, who runs the iPhone maker. It was a session that Mr. Kalanick was dreading.

For months, Mr. Kalanick had pulled a fast one on Apple by directing his employees to help camouflage the ride-hailing app from Apple’s engineers. The reason? So Apple would not find out that Uber had been secretly identifying and tagging iPhones even after its app had been deleted and the devices erased — a fraud detection maneuver that violated Apple’s privacy guidelines.

But Apple was onto the deception, and when Mr. Kalanick arrived at the midafternoon meeting sporting his favorite pair of bright red sneakers and hot-pink socks, Mr. Cook was prepared. “So, I’ve heard you’ve been breaking some of our rules,” Mr. Cook said in his calm, Southern tone. Stop the trickery, Mr. Cook then demanded, or Uber’s app would be kicked out of Apple’s App Store.

One way that Uber has been tracking people is by buying email data from places like Unroll.me:

The chief executive of email unsubscription service Unroll.me has said he is “heartbroken” that users felt betrayed by the fact that his company monetises the contents of their inbox by selling their data to companies such as Uber.

Founded in 2011, the free web service allows users to unsubscribe en masse from mailing lists, newsletters and other email annoyances. To do so, it requires access to the users’ inboxes, and permission from them to scan the data for unsubscribe links.

But following an acquisition by shopping app Slice in 2014, Unroll.me developed a side-business: selling aggregated data about users to the very apps they were unsubscribing from.

Taxis for life!

Mr GT Chris wrote:

Taxis for life!

I admit I took great pleasure, last time I was in San Francisco, in hailing a cab from right in front of Uber's offices.

https://adnauseam.io/ is an extension that works with uBlock Origin to click on every blocked ad. The goal is to make click-through tracking useless.