I get it. My privacy settings explicitly say do not send telemetry, analytics or whatever else you want to call it. But they ignore my request and try to capture the data anyway. Dunno why they call themselves a privacy focused browser. I already uninstalled it and put in the Mullvad browser.
In this thread: people not understanding sampling bias. Of course everyone here likes privacy, and had friends who think similarly. It’s a privacy themed community on a niche tech forum.
Speaking as GenZ (or Millennial, depends who you ask for the definition): fuuuuck that.
Speaking to the article specifically: I don’t trust a surveillance vendor to work honestly when surveying the acceptance of their surveillance tool. The article also fails to mention (if it does, it’s so brief I missed it) that the pressure some parents put on their kids to install and allow these kinds of spyware is immense. The kid having it on does not equate to the kid choosing to have it on.
It seems really pathetic to me when parents can't offer their teens privacy. I have a child and I want him to trust me. Invading privacy feels like it would have the opposite effect and create a very one-sided relationship. You can ask my mom how much she knows about me now and its considerably less than my boxing mates.
Life360 is the subject and the surveyor for this article so take it with a grain of salt. They want this to be normal. However, it does not change the fact that clearly Gen Z is more open to this than previous generations at least to some degree.
As a parent, I do plan on using the services, but definitely not daily and I want my kids to have a say in the matter. What’s important is they feel safe.
That headline misses the big problem. It’s not that Google was forced to give up search history data. If Google gets a warrant, they will comply. The real problem is that the justices acknowledged that the warrant was unconstitutional and permitted the evidence anyway. They claim the police “acted in good faith” while violating the constitution, which is a horrifying precedent.
If you’re thinking “alls well that ends well,” because they caught the arsonists who murdered a family of five, I can sympathize with that feeling, but consider that the murderer may have his conviction overturned on subsequent appeals.
The police obtained a warrant for everyone who searched for a thing from Google, and the search information was used against the accused in court. 14 states currently outlaw abortion, and there’s some cousin-fucking conservative prosecutor in Dipshit, Alabama, just salivating over the prospect of obtaining the IP addresses of every person looking up directions to clinics.
Not long after Dobbs, someone posted a guide on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy on how to securely find* this information without opening yourself up to potential harm. Terrifying that that’s even a thing that needs to exist.
I wonder how many companies like Cambridge analytica or TPUSA just have access to these. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s some social engineering dark arts underground of pretending to be police and getting this data to study
But they are taking about monitoring public facing social media - frankly I think it would be daft if they did not do this.
If a be teaching assistant starts publicly posting harmful harmful content there should indeed be systems on place to ensure this is identified and appropriate action taken.
If you post publicly you have to assume everybody, including your employer, might see it.
You definitely have a point with the public facing posts. However, I will disagree with you on two points.
“Harmful content” does not seem to apply here as the article implies that specifically posts criticizing government policies were flagged.
Even so, harmful content could just as well be classified through existing procedures such as members of the public filing complaints rather than simply “keeping score”.
It’s a bit different when your employer is the government as they should be held to a higher standard.
privacyguides
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.