Off-topic: This is a completely dark pattern. Usually, not clicking 'I Accept' and then closing a window, would mean denial of whatever agreement is being offered. The GDPR explicitly requires...
Off-topic:
By clicking "I Accept" or "X" on this banner, or using our site, you consent to the use of cookies unless you have disabled them.
This is a completely dark pattern.
Usually, not clicking 'I Accept' and then closing a window, would mean denial of whatever agreement is being offered.
The GDPR explicitly requires that opt-out be the same level of difficulty as opt-in.
Instead, companies are continually creating software where it is more difficult for the user to control data that ostensibly, and legally, belongs to their own self.
Harking back to the article at hand:
First, we need standards to ensure that unsafe products don’t harm others.
Standards for protecting users have been proposed over time. The Do-Not-Track header, the cookie-law, and now the GDPR - and in all cases, the vast majority of companies with an Internet presence, has shown they have no interest in protecting their users. Their only concern is draining them dry of their data, so that other internet companies can use it to manipulate them.
The Cybersecurity Framework — which contains guidance on how to identify, prevent, recover, and respond to security risks — is voluntary at this point, which means nobody follows it.
Nobody will protect users, when it's far easier just to use them as another data point.
Stories like this just highlight more and more how corruption from corporations is one of biggest issues facing modern society, in all forms not just politics.
Stories like this just highlight more and more how corruption from corporations is one of biggest issues facing modern society, in all forms not just politics.
As I read this article, I began thinking about the John Deere tractor problem and how now-a-days a new motor vehicle is completely inoperable unless its software is operative. I'm imagining that...
As I read this article, I began thinking about the John Deere tractor problem and how now-a-days a new motor vehicle is completely inoperable unless its software is operative. I'm imagining that as a starter, tractors and cars should have an optional design that allows them to work without software, that allows the user the ability to activate a back-up software isolated from any further changes unless the user authorizes it. Much like rebuilding your computer with a boot disk.
If all are cars have a software kill switch (which police might use during a pursuit), then basically we have handed to the government, domestic or foreign, the ability to bring our transportation network to its knees.
A fundamental theme in my suggestions is: control: who has has it? Devices should have the ability for the owner/user to retain their autonomy. As a corollary, the right to repair becomes even more important.
Considering the transportation networks are funded (at least mostly) by taxpayers, that doesn’t sound unjustified to my ear. I mean, if the police or fire department has vehicles out on the road...
If all are cars have a software kill switch (which police might use during a pursuit), then basically we have handed to the government, domestic or foreign, the ability to bring our transportation network to its knees.
Considering the transportation networks are funded (at least mostly) by taxpayers, that doesn’t sound unjustified to my ear. I mean, if the police or fire department has vehicles out on the road with lights and sirens on, they already are coopting the transportation network, aren’t they? I have no issue with that.
The problem I see is that it isn’t the government that has the access to the kill switch—it’s corporations. That is unjustified.
Off-topic:
This is a completely dark pattern.
Usually, not clicking 'I Accept' and then closing a window, would mean denial of whatever agreement is being offered.
The GDPR explicitly requires that opt-out be the same level of difficulty as opt-in.
Instead, companies are continually creating software where it is more difficult for the user to control data that ostensibly, and legally, belongs to their own self.
Harking back to the article at hand:
Standards for protecting users have been proposed over time. The Do-Not-Track header, the cookie-law, and now the GDPR - and in all cases, the vast majority of companies with an Internet presence, has shown they have no interest in protecting their users. Their only concern is draining them dry of their data, so that other internet companies can use it to manipulate them.
Nobody will protect users, when it's far easier just to use them as another data point.
Stories like this just highlight more and more how corruption from corporations is one of biggest issues facing modern society, in all forms not just politics.
^ This line is great. I’ve seen a people make similar points, but never so succinctly.
As I read this article, I began thinking about the John Deere tractor problem and how now-a-days a new motor vehicle is completely inoperable unless its software is operative. I'm imagining that as a starter, tractors and cars should have an optional design that allows them to work without software, that allows the user the ability to activate a back-up software isolated from any further changes unless the user authorizes it. Much like rebuilding your computer with a boot disk.
If all are cars have a software kill switch (which police might use during a pursuit), then basically we have handed to the government, domestic or foreign, the ability to bring our transportation network to its knees.
A fundamental theme in my suggestions is: control: who has has it? Devices should have the ability for the owner/user to retain their autonomy. As a corollary, the right to repair becomes even more important.
Considering the transportation networks are funded (at least mostly) by taxpayers, that doesn’t sound unjustified to my ear. I mean, if the police or fire department has vehicles out on the road with lights and sirens on, they already are coopting the transportation network, aren’t they? I have no issue with that.
The problem I see is that it isn’t the government that has the access to the kill switch—it’s corporations. That is unjustified.