heartsofwar

heartsofwar , 25 days ago

I think there needs to be more government involvement and protection in how data is collected, shared, and consumed; however, I also think people don't realize that their perception of 'privacy' has always had the major benefit of being from the perspective of an individual that largely is unprofitable.

Many celebrities would very likely tell the public that 'privacy' is largely a myth and the reason their perspective is that way is because their lives, activities, and actions are viewed as profitable to someone. A lucrative paycheck from acquiring that salacious photo in a vulnerable position, etc is a big motivator, and if the celebrity gets mad at the paparazzi, there's even more news about how the celebrity lost their shit for all the world to see; however, if the celebrity embraces the media and tries to work with them to conserve what little 'privacy' they have, there is negative news about how the celebrity is fake or too controlling about their image. At the end of the day, these celebrities simply want to have dinner out with family or friends and they can't.

The general public isn't used to the idea that someone cares enough about every nuanced detail of their decisions that it would matter... but it does. Sadly, a celebrity must spend thousands of dollars to secure their privacy, and even then it isn't a guarantee... what hope do we have? In today's society we use debit or credit cards, but all of the transactions are data mined by the banks and privacy is non-existent; however, with cash you have some built-in 'privacy' because at its core it is not easily profitable to track.

And that is the point; Data collection is slowly bridging the gap between a celebrity's reality and normal everyday human perception of 'privacy'.

heartsofwar , 1 month ago

Disclaimer: I know the article is for the UK, but I'm in the US, so my reply will be US focused

There's always more than one side to every issue...

• Social media is the devil and Parents before 2000 didn't have to worry much, or did they, about their kids being on the internet 24/7

First, you needed a computer, a pretty expensive, bulky item, and then you needed the internet, mostly tied to a fixed landline that interrupted the main form of personal communication up until around the mid 90s. Even in the late 90s, internet options that wouldn't interrupt the landline service usually had big draw-backs (usually price or shared bandwidth, etc). The point is that while the internet and social media existed back then (newsgroups, BBS, IRC, etc), their availability was limited by external factors.

Before the age of 15, my parents wouldn't allow us to have our own computers, we were limited to a few hours per day of screen time, and less than 1 hour per day on the internet. In addition, the 1 hour of internet had to be on our father's computer which was in public view. These rules didn't stop us from doing bad stuff, but it definitely limited things.

After the age of 16, we were able to have our own computers, but internet access was still limited to 1 hour per day. Fortunately for me, I had an older brother that was 18 and leaving home, so before he left, I asked him to create an account with the ISP and I'd pay the bill). At this point, I was 16 with unlimited internet, the only problem was it still interrupted the main house land line, but that changed a year or so later with DSL.

Even when the technology and availability was semi-difficult to work around, I still got into a ton of online arguments with random, unknown people about stupid stuff, formed online friendships and "relationships", sexted, even got into arguments with other jealous dudes trying to steal my online girl, etc.

All of this is to say though that while my social media experience during my teen years wasn't nearly as bad as what kids are subjected to today, my parents were right that they had reasons to be worried, and I'm sure the rules they did enforce along with the hoops I had to jump through with the tech kept me from making some pretty unfathomable mistakes which is kind of ridiculous considering everything else I did that I'm not admitting to ;-)

Today parents shove a smart phone into their child's hand to stop them from crying or to keep them busy, but many don't realize the power of influence the phone, social media, or they have over their child.

I really hate to say this, but a parent should not be a friend. My parents didn't do everything they could, but I'd give them a solid B rating (85 grade) on trying to minimize any bad influence from the internet given the tech that was reasonably priced and at their fingertips. However, today, parents just straight don't have any excuse.

There are $50 routers that have pretty extensive, standard parental tech on-board. They can limit the access to the internet per day and for certain hours, log all websites visited, deny access to certain websites, etc. There are more tech savvy options too, logging all traffic, Remote viewing, etc.

Android and Apple phones can block all incoming / outgoing, calls / SMS except for those on an approved contact list, You can deny access to certain apps, even force the phone / app to go into a limp mode when a certain "on-screen-time" is met, etc

Parents today have so much available to them to prevent their children from being "mind-controlled" by social media; however, the most important aspect is awareness or resolve to do something about it. A parents' job, until the child becomes mature enough or legally an adult, is to always present, support, and or sometimes enforce the overall best, healthiest decision.

While I won't deny that some stuff on social media has gotten out of control, I mostly think parents today are to blame and the government needs to stay out of it except if they want to enforce a higher minimum age limit for social media or try and penalize the companies for obvious negligence on not properly making the efforts to keep younger children off the platforms.

heartsofwar , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Children are still humans, and you should respect them as such

Absolutely; however, children aren't adults and until the child is an adult, the parent is the legal custodian for that child. Part of that duty is to protect the child from negative outside influences and / or themselves if need be. When it comes to my child, while they are not an adult, nothing is off the table of consideration in order to protect them.

The last thing kids need is their father to snoop around in their web traffic and erode any kind of privacy

Respectfully, we disagree. The last thing a child needs is to be scooped up in a web of lies by an online predator and kidnapped, raped, humiliated, or worse... killed.

You seem to think I would refuse my child any privacy, but that isn't the case. I will protect my children the best way I can from any harm, and that starts by being aware and setting limits for them that not only protects them but also protects their privacy. If those limits get violated, then I have cause for concern and would need to re-evaluate those limits... and in that situation, yes, I would snoop on their web traffic.

I'm a firm believer that the middle road is usually the best stance to take in most situations until you're given valid reason to act. I doubt anything I have said thus far has swayed your opinion; therefore, I think we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree. :)

heartsofwar , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I could be totally wrong, IANAL, but I think this has more to do with how Apple restricts access of features or services to third-parties than anything else...

For example, Apple offers Apple Pay on the iPhone. They claim it is highly secure due to hardware end-to-end encryption and that not even Apple has access to the data. Because of these beliefs and others, Apple doesn't allow any other Pay or wallet application on the iPhone or app store. Other companies like Google, Visa, MasterCard, etc have tried to submit Pay / wallet applications to the iPhone app store, but Apple denies them because it claims access to the NFC hardware APIs would reduce security.

In this example, Apple stands to gain everything as the sole digital Pay / Wallet proprietor on the iPhone just based off of a "wink, wink, nod, nod" type of response. Yes, while Apple's response could be accurate, letting third-parties have access to the hardware NFC APIs would reduce security, Apple is making that decision from a monopolistic point of view.

It would be different if Apple didn't have a digital Pay / Wallet system or if Apple allowed the companies to have the application on the iPhone / app store but maybe it had to go through a more thorough security approval process.

Now take for example how Apple operated back in 2008 / 2009 when it released GPS Navigation support on the iPhone. They partnered with Garmin (Garmin had access to the Assisted / GPS APIs); however, Garmin wasn't the only third-party able to submit a GPS Navigation application. In the end, Apple eventually created their own Maps with Turn-by-turn navigation and I think we all know how shit that was for a long time, but imagine if they had gone Apple Maps from the get-go and blocked third parties forcing people to use their tech only...