aluhut
You've forgotten that those pictures belong to Facebook. So whoever buys them out from the remains of Facebook will do whatever they want with it. They may share it with you. They may not. Maybe they'll use it to train some AI and then discard it altogether. Maybe they'll put your head onto some porn star. Maybe China will buy it. Can you imagine, a Chinese man coming to your grandparents house and taking away their photo album? What would your grandpa do?
> I don't understand your view though
It's not a view. It's a fact. Did you even learn your job somewhere? Any scientific background to this "work in digital advertisement"? Ads steal your attention. You can't do anything about it and most of the time you don't even have any kind of profit from it. To say it in the new cultures terms: it's mind rape.
> I think many people, you included, misunderstand the economic benefit of advertising.
Please spare me that marketing talk. I do accept that there are ads on the internet. Sure. Some people even watch and click them. But just like the part you ignored in my previous comment you seem to intentionally forget about _extend_ here too. There is a huge difference between a cookie and a canvas fingerprint. There is a difference between a picture advertising a product and an autoplay video or malware infected script. There is an difference between an IP in your HPs log and a live track of a user.
The internet would have not gone bankrupt without the higher extend of advertisement intrusion. It's a lie to make advertising companies make even more money because that's what you do on the market. Their new product is data, profiles build upon that data (the more data about a single user, the more worth it is) and the continuous lie about the customer who WANTS their tips on where to spend money. I don't want those tips. I don't know anyone who wants them just like I don't know anyone who didn't want an adblocker installed. Think about it. The trust is gone. Forever.
> I work in digital advetising and see no reason to distrust the industry.
Of course you do...it's soothing for me though because such an amount of ignorance would be frightening.
> I'm not sure what you mean by sneaky methods,
Then you are a pretty shitty digital advertiser. You need to get some updates fast.
Edit@Edit:
> Edit - very true that most people don't understand it. But then again most people don't understand anything they use daily (the internet, any app, etc).
So you assume that this gives you a carte blance? I mean, this attitude by people from the ad industry is just another reason nobody trusts you.
Imagine, that I'd be tricking your grandparents into letting me into their apartment by brabbleing some tech bullshit about their cable. I wouldn't do any kind of work. They'd have no benefit at all but I'd have stolen their photo album.
With your world view, I had the justification to do it because they didn't understand a single word I told them to get in their house.
Would you like that?
Because it very likely won't be there anymore. Your grandparents had full control over their photo albums. You have nothing.
> Op dates users freely gave away their data, but now advertisers are stealing it? The same sentence can be said about the internet as a whole - but most people believe the benefits are worth it
Most people don't grasp the _extend_ of what they give to the advertisers. Not even in the slightest way. They still think that as long as they don't fill out a questionnaire, "they" won't know. Or what I give to Facebook, stays with Facebook and so on.
> Lots of people believe that to be true, but I don't think you can just call advertisers "the devil" without an explanation.
Their sneaky methods, lack of information and the whole attention stealing industry it is, is bad. Just the basic normal ad on the street is already exploiting us. The digital versions are even able to infect our tools. It's an uncontrolled mess. An anarchy of people who don't give a damn because they can. We'll never know the full extend of misuse happening with our data on daily bases. I don't see a reason to trust them. Do you?
> 2. On multiple recent occasions, police in North Carolina have quietly been successful in obtaining search warrants that force Google to turn over these records. Rather than "standard" search warrants asking for the location of a particular suspect in a crime, these "reverse" or "area based" warrants ask for time and location data for all users who have entered a geographical area during a time of interest. The records returned are initially anonymous account numbers, and the police then make followup requests for identifying information of the subset of accounts that they think are of interest to the case.
Sure you can delete your account on reddit. They'll still track you as if you have one just like the facebook buttons or all those creative new tracking shit we regularly read about here.
In the end, you don't have to be an extremist. Just don't post everything and keep in mind that you are being tracked. This is the internet for you today.
> things like "single payer", "gun control", and "social democracy"
You may be aware that many over here are interested in US politics and culture. It's a historical thing but it's also quite entertaining. I can say that I'm more interested and know more about what's going on in the US then in France or the Netherlands. At least most of the time. We are aware that those three things are being perceived differently by pretty much half of your population. This is nothing abstract here.
Good we have the Öffentlich Rechtlicher Rundfunk I guess ;)
However,
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
still stands here. Just from a quick lookup on wikipedia, you got to this statement. So if this is even obvious to you, we don't really have to talk about any kind of rehabilitation. The real issue would be some terribly bad informed people.
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
So you agree that there was no rehabilitation then?
I still don't understand why you wouldn't just come up with a new term. Is this bad marketing knowledge or intentional?
I was thinking of financial elites btw.
The term itself was hardly known/in use to the general public before the crash 2008 and occupy. Since then it was only known as basically a different word for greed.
As another commenter (who obviously decided to delete his comment) wrote here, I also doubt that a re-branding will ever be successful. It's not like coming up with a new term in economy is something hard to do.
They were forced to put some IT guys in our office. Those are 2 kids working as cheap freelancers for a local subcontractor hired by IBM.
Service is horrible. Tickets stacking up and being deleted regularly. Project relevant IT not working, people leaving because of it. It's a mess.
When I got mine, I was trapped in some Siri -> Lock Screen -> Siri combination. "Siri go away" and "Siri show me the home screen" didn't help either. I just wanted to get on the home screen but since there is no Back-Button...well it's disabled now.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#dat...
5.1.2 Data Use and Sharing
(i) You may not attempt, facilitate, or encourage others to identify anonymous users or reconstruct user profiles based on data collected from depth and/or facial mapping tools (e.g. ARKit, Camera APIs, or Photo APIs)
Let's wrap this up here.
- A user issues his fears based on a technology that is the topic here
- he gets downvoted into oblivion but no comment follows
- I trigger a comment by stating the obvious behavior prevalent on every single article posted here that may be or even is critical towards Apple
- you declare the users comment stupid based on your assumption that a single software use of the general feature may not be misused. Even though you can't know that because we are talking about a closed system and the APIs allow that without a possibility to opt-out (if you have already granted general camera permissions).
- you further state that users don't need privacy either way because they gave it all away. Which is actually the only really stupid statement in this discussion here
- after all that you even go so far damning another US company based on actually nothing. A company that allowed the world to develop their own open source operating system and app world after you've done everything to protect a company that provides you with a system you actually know only what they allow you to know about.
macintux, I couldn't have wished for more to demonstrate what is wrong here. There is a quasi cult behavior in the Apple fan base turning people into marketing machines ready to drop everything to protect the brand while condemning everybody else. You owe the guy an upvote. I don't care.
FYI: you can have an Android phone complete without a single google app or the google app store. LineageOS is the most popular alternative OS. There also other stores you can put on your phone. Like F-Droid, which hosts open source apps.
You make it look like it's easy for the normal Apple user to switch to Android. In fact it's quite the opposite and the whole situation is even worse because most of them won't even be aware of the dangers. The major reasons for people I know to chose an IPhone over an Android is the "ease of use" (resulting from the fact that their first smart phone was an IPhone already and they never tried anything different) and because they are "so confused with all the options/apps/general possibilities on Android". Those are the people who need to be especially protected. They are caged within a locked environment of a single US company. This alone should make you think.
> But really, nearly everyone shares images of themselves online, so even that's of dubious value.
This sentence together with this high tech approach you demonstrate on the rest of the comment is mind-boggling. As it's the most common approach of companies/individuals to abolish digital privacy all together. The old version of it was "I'm not afraid of X because I have nothing to hide". Horrifying, but now I understand where your attitude comes from.
Being born in a oppressive state, this is where I would actually use the word "stupid".
> I'd challenge you to find any security expert who agrees that Face ID as Apple implements it can realistically...
As I've wrote above. It may be that FaceID is not a big deal right now. We don't know it for sure since it's all locked down but we assume it. There is however still the ARKit and all those APIs using those depth/facial mapping capabilities. Those becoming the new standard for popular apps is just a matter of time and since you've already given rights to use the camera, those features will be (or are already?) a nice extra. So you see...we don't even need to reach out to possible changes from the paranoid government governing Apple and their data under and awaiting some patch to allow the access to FaceID data. It's far more accessible.
I wonder, would you allow your phone to take a drop of blood for authentication or where does your privacy actually start?
Considering the fact that this exists because a) Apple was unable to come up with any real innovation to sell the new product and b) people seem to be really to lazy to type a number and rather give up that information.
Data Minimization, Data Avoidance are a thing.
> "using one of the most sophisticated attacks ever"
As if we haven't heard that speech before...