|
| ▲ | eddyg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Those aren't the problem, it's any "free" mobile app in the App Store or Play Store with an advertising SDK (which is almost all of them) that uses your location to "keep your weather forecast up-to-date" but also provide data brokers with your location... https://darkanswers.com/how-your-location-is-sold-to-adverti... |
| |
| ▲ | magicalist 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, and—setting aside the issues with all the millions of smart phone users who can't properly consent to these apps and their permissions because they don't have the knowledge to know what they're actually consenting to—the great thing is that I can choose not to install these apps. And I don't! I don't have the same choice with cameras everywhere that feed into a company with a security team run by donkeys and that provides minimal to no oversight to the government bodies using the camera data to do an end run around the fourth amendment. |
|
|
| ▲ | steviedotboston 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| my point is people are freaking out about Flock but everyone has a tracking device in their pocket at all times, and people absolutely love Ring doorbell cameras (ok maybe not you, I get it). It seems incongruous to me that people are willing to recognize the benefits that these tools provide law enforcement at solving crimes but when it comes to Flock cameras somehow things are totally different. They're just cameras with really good software, and law enforcement likes them because it makes their jobs easier. |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A phone provides the individual with tangible benefits. It only tracks the individual. The individual is always free to opt out. A ring doorbell camera provides the individual with tangible benefits. It is installed by the individual on personal property. It does however typically capture some amount of public space which I think is problematic. Government run centralized surveillance does not provide the individual with tangible benefits. It almost exclusively captures public spaces (that's usually the entire point of the exercise after all). It generally is not realistic to opt out short of being denied access to any surveilled public spaces. If that happens to include the majority of roads near your home then I guess you'll want to look into moving. |
|
|
| ▲ | sodapopcan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some of these sites, if not all, allegedly keep a profile on you regardless of if you've ever had an account with them or not. |
|
| ▲ | drnick1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same thing here. I don't use that malware at all. |
|
| ▲ | elpocko 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thank you for letting us know. |
|
| ▲ | dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if FB bought raw data from the providers just to see if they could aggregate it into their shadow profiles. Whatever the cost of buying that data, it wouldn't mean anything to a corp that prints money. Yes, this is pure tin foil hat level conspiracy nonsense, but it goes to show how little I think of FB |
|
| ▲ | flemhans 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Disconnect its modem |
