| ▲ | jFriedensreich 3 days ago |
| And as important: making it impossible or very hard and annoying to export and own your data. |
|
| ▲ | anonzzzies 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes, I am happy I can export my data with google but boy it is annoying to do. |
| |
| ▲ | yard2010 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Those pricks throttled the download to 30 kbps. When I tried to download with aria, after a few failed attempts (not straight forward ofc) I got a message saying I can only download it 6 times, and that I should send a new request. This is evil. | | |
| ▲ | dkiebd 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I have downloaded my data with google takeout dozens of times without a single issue. Speed was very high (maximum possible for my connection) and never had a download error. I’m talking about multi-gigabyte exports of my email and my drive. | | |
| ▲ | barbazoo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Different experience for me, ~500Gb so about 10 chunks of 50Gb (largest chunk size) that had to be downloaded by hand because of their auth. When the download got interrupted I had maybe 4 more tries, might have been more, but after trying to many times the entire takeout expired. Automating the process, and using smaller chunks didn't work at the time because of their opaque API and its auth. I feel like this has been made a shitty experience intentionally. | |
| ▲ | anonzzzies 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have 900gb in my account and on my 500mbps connection it took forever to download, not because of my speed but because of theirs and it just 'connection failed' at 80% many many many times and asking to relogin. It should be illegal. Not supporting just wget -c (you can use it with a lot of trouble/hacks and it's not reliable which defeats the point) is just clearly done to annoy you into not doing it. | | |
| ▲ | omgwtfbyobbq 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I had a similar issue downloading a large file from Google drive (125gb?) over the web. I had to install the drive client on a Windows laptop and download it through that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, I am sure this is a mustache-twirling power move by Google, and not a bug in your obscure 20-year-old HTTP utility. | | |
| ▲ | behringer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | considering google is evil, yes I would expect this is google's fault |
|
| |
| ▲ | msgodel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I tried to for a number of years after they added it and my download always expired before I was able to complete it since it didn't support restarting. Eventually I got locked out of my account so I just lost all the data. These days I think of every account as ephemeral, anything I don't have in git on my local machine will disappear one day. |
|
|
| ▲ | cnst 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some companies somehow blatantly get away with not allowing any export at all. For example, Amazon eero, the overpriced WiFi router that doesn't even work (without phoning back home and having an app installed on your phone). They had an outage like a year ago, and during said outage, all your existing ad blocking stopped working, too, even if you never rebooted during the outage, and even though said blocking is supposed to be performed locally. I think you can't even get the ad blocking unless you or your ISP pays for the special subscription, either. (I imagine the thing could have removed all local ad blocking settings and lists during the time it couldn't confirm you're still a paying customer because their cloud was down?) Does anyone know how exactly does Amazon get away with not providing data export for their eero product? I haven't seen a Blink or Ring exports, either. The main Amazon dot com does have the export, which has some extensive data you may not think they do collect, but it doesn't cover eero, Blink or Ring. |
| |
| ▲ | Someone 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Does anyone know how exactly does Amazon get away with not providing data export for their eero product? I checked eero.com. It seems info about the product other than “it’s a secure WiFi router that doesn’t require users to manage it” is in the videos, if it is on that site at all, but I couldn’t get the videos to play, so I may be wrong, but why would a WiFi router have personal data on the device? It will have the username and password at your internet provider, but what else does it store? | | |
| ▲ | cnst 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It collects WiFi Radio Analytics (2.4GHz / 5GHz-Low / 5GHz-High frequency utilisation), Activity History (data usage by device, as well as "scan" and ad blocks by device). For ad blocking and network control, it also has "Block & Allow Sites" with the blacklisted and whitelisted domain names, which you may have to use to block ads and also unblock some domains that stop working as a result of bogus entries in the ad block. All of this information is stored in the cloud, but I found no way to export it in any way. I've actually contacted eero, asking for the export, and they've basically admitted that it's not supported. | |
| ▲ | const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you share data locally that's almost certainly over HTTP. Also DNS is usually over HTTP. So that's all your websites you visit, plus any data transmitted from your phone to computer or google TV or whatever the fuck. | |
| ▲ | williamscales 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m guessing Amazon could have info on their side about your eero. Without knowing more about the router’s cloud functionality it’s hard to say what exactly they would have. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jommi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| we are in the upcoming golden age of browser automation this will stop being a problem |
| |
|
| ▲ | legohead 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We didn't set out to hide our GDPR requests, we put them behind our Support/Legal button. But we got sued anyway, and we lost. Now we have to have the "delete my data" and "request my data" as part of our main settings list. Result: flooded with requests. People are clicking the buttons just because they are there. For me it's not a big deal, I automate all the requests. But, I still feel like this went too far. |
| |
| ▲ | inetknght 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > People are clicking the buttons just because they are there. I think this isn't a very charitable opinion of why people click buttons. > But, I still feel like this went too far. Why? | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | user_7832 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, as long as there's eg a confirmation to prevent misclicks "Are you sure you want to delete", I don't really see what's the problem. |
| |
| ▲ | Slow_Hand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t know what business you work for, but what makes you sure users aren’t clicking the buttons because it’s what they want AND it’s convenient? | |
| ▲ | jFriedensreich 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its our human right to have realtime machine readable data copies of everything we do, its no companies business to question or interfere. Unless it crashes your servers because trolls are trying to DOS, it is really hard to not be angry at a statement as "this is going too far". | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > People are clicking the buttons just because they are there. The reasons why they click the buttons are utterly irrelevant to anyone except them. Let them click the buttons. It's their right. > But, I still feel like this went too far. Not far enough. I think data should be a massive liability. It should actively cost you lots of money to know any fact at all about any person anywhere on the planet. In other words, in an ideal world you would be scrambling to press that button on their behalf the second your business with them was concluded. "Can we please forget everything we know about you please?" and only their explicit affirmative consent would allow you to not delete their data. | | |
| ▲ | mnw21cam 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | At the moment, holding data about someone is not a significant recurrent cost, but it is a liability in the form of a risk that could get you in serious trouble if you get something wrong. However, that particular business risk doesn't tend to be recognised by many many organisations. It should be. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If they can afford to be ignorant of the risks, it's because the liability is not high enough. Gotta raise the liability until they start doing what we want them to do by default. Private information should be an existential risk for them. They should be deleting every last bit without even asking, not sucking up endless amounts of it without consent. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Users have basic bare bones functionality that all applications should support is "too far"? If the user can create and account, they should be able to delete one. One is not harder or further than the other. We just don't view it that way because we're all parasites who feed off the current status quo. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Users have basic bare bones functionality that all applications should support is "too far"? They were objecting to the idea that putting it behind the "support" button is a violation. If true, that's excessive in terms of mandating accessibility. | | |
| ▲ | const_cast 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I would never file a support ticket to open an account. If you did that, your business would be under by the end of the week. No, requiring actual application functionality isn't too far. For God's sake, just make normal software like a normal person. This should all be very intuitive. Stop trying to game things, stop trying to maximize conversions and other bullshit metrics, stop trying to implement every dark pattern under the sun and just... Be normal. I promise you will comply without even trying. And, bonus points, your software will be less shit. I know it doesn't feel that way right now, because most software is shit. You shouldn't aspire to be another turd floating around in the cesspool that is the modern web. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I would never file a support ticket to Well now we're deep into the realm of assumptions. They said "behind our Support/Legal button" which to me sounds like it probably loads another normal page. Though a GDPR request basically is a ticket. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dns_snek 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can we get the full story? I don't believe that's what happened because GDPR does not prescribe any specific avenue of requesting data. You're not required to have a button on your website at all, it's completely valid to accept and respond to requests by mail, but it's obviously much cheaper to offer automated data export. |
|
