U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Facial Recognition Ban

Re:U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Fac... by deanCommie on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @12:13AM (#22166653)

I'm pretty sure that umvi was sarcastic. Think about his last sentence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Fac... by kick on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @12:22AM (#22166679)

I hate to cross-reference as that's technically breaking the rules, but their post history doesn't exactly suggest that they're being sarcastic, and their (three-person, all related) company's privacy policy seems to be "We're taking your data, and hell yes we're going to sell it."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Fac... by umvi on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @12:49PM (#22171895)

I'm not being sarcastic.

The privacy policy I have on my website is used for exactly one app in the Google/iOS App store and is based on a template one I found on GitHub. FWIW, that one app collects exactly zero data on users other than whatever Unity collects for serving opt-in ads.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Gov Privacy Watchdog Under Pressure to Recommend Fac... by rahuldottech on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @12:20AM (#22166674)

Poe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

If you're going to be sarcastic over the text on the internet, please make your intent clear with a "/s".

[ Parent | on HN ]