| ▲ | catlifeonmars 6 hours ago | |||||||
> I’m certainly not endorsing it, do think it’s pretty problematic, and I’m glad it’s getting some visibility. But I do take some issue with the alarmist framing of what’s going on. Speaking has someone who shares the same lack of surprise, perhaps some alarm is warranted. Just because it’s ubiquitous doesn’t mean it’s ok. This feels very much frog in boiling water for me. Why do you think the alarmist framing is unwarranted? | ||||||||
| ▲ | haswell 5 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
I do think a degree of alarm is appropriate. But it’s critical to sound the correct alarm. To me, it seems like the authors pulled the fire alarm for a single building when in reality there’s a tornado bearing down. And by doing so, everyone is scrambling about a fire instead of the response a tornado siren would cause. They’re both dangerous and worthy of an immediate reaction, but the confusion and misdirection this causes seems deeply problematic. When people realize the fire wasn’t real, they start to question the validity of the alarm. The tornado is still out there. I realize this analogy is a bit stretched. As someone who has spent quite a lot of time steeped in security/privacy research, the stuff described in the article has been happening pervasively across the industry. People absolutely should be alarmed. Many of us have been alarmed for quite some time. Raising the alarm by saying “LinkedIn is searching your computer” isn’t it. | ||||||||
| ||||||||