Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Well to me the film is a cautionary tale. Past history teaches us that whenever any weapon or technology has been developed, the very same artifact can be used against its creators. So the privileged (the police, in this case) are at risk of being put under surveillance just as much as anybody else.
I wonder how much this technology will be pushed forward and whether it will be pushed forward simply 'because we can'.
This article is good, but it partially misses a point. (But only partially.)
Yes, the technology is still not that accurate, which means many identifications of suspicious characters by the authorities will be false positives. Yes, we do have an expectation of privacy, and this is seriously infringed. And yes, as it does say, law enforcement has to have a reason to demand we identify ourselves, and this has the potential of relieving them of needing a reason. So it does hit all the points I would like to see made.
But the most important thing is that it shifts the burden of proof away from the authorities and onto us: we basically are assumed to be questionable, and have to prove otherwise. If all parties, including law enforcement, are of good intent, this is merely an unacceptable intrusion into our private business, which is bad enough. If the legal authorities are not of good intent (which happens), it is really dangerous.
I did not use to think so many advances in technology are as dangerous as they now are starting to appear. I was a little too naive, I guess.
Guilty until proven innocent, under the false premise of it being for everyone's safety. Orwell's legacy is unfolding before our very eyes, in much greater detail than anyone could ever imagine, and the masses think it's great lol.
My sister wonders why I think "Elf on a Shelf" is a really bad idea lol... indoctrinate these youngsters with the idea that they are always being watched and it becomes status quo. I just looked it up, at least I'm not the only one:
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,049 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,386
Thanks Received: 10,206
Not taking away from your point - because I think it's a good one and I agree - but this already happens. Police have almost limitless powers - which can mess your life up to no end - and there are zero repercussions - unless they commit a crime themselves - and even then good luck proving it.
With you that "Elf on a Shelf" is a really bad idea and no constructive.
Yeah, I genuinely feel like it's borderline impossible to hide from cameras and listening devices, at least in major cities. It's even a little bit scary :/ I remember at the end of an NBA game somewhat recently, LeBron James covered his mouth and said something to Lonzo Ball... then the whole world freaked out and absolutely had to hear what he said! Someone found some audio from a camera and discovered what was said, and it was literally like: "Good game, you played hard". SO IMPORTANT. I wish we'd all calm down about knowing everything that's happening at all times. The Anon movie is scarily possible, but I feel like the scenarios laid out in The Circle book are definitely happening right now... this 'need to know everything' idea. I didn't use to think much about how monitored we are until I saw those films, books and news stories.
When it comes to online use, it's so hard to hide tracks, unless you use a VPN, right? And I'm not even sure how good that is. Not that I need to hide anything really, just don't like the notion of everything I search being stored away somewhere. I do what I can by going on 'private windows' and by deleting cookies and so on, but I don't think it is working that good. I still tend to see the same ads pop up on other sites I use, and especially on Skype.
It sounds like a complicated and long process, but what do you guys know about the 'Right to be Forgotten?' This is where I discovered it: https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/websites/digital-law/deleting-a-google-result-and-protecting-personal-data/
It's more or less a way to make it harder to find information on you on Google, especially when that info is wrong/outdated/slanderous and can impact your job or school in the future. Seems like it's only in the EU right now, but I'm wondering if it will spread to the whole world? I feel like it should, as I don't see the harm in it.
There are techniques that one can use to minimize the ability of websites/ISP/Google, etc. to track you. How much to use them depends on one's activities as well as a certain degree of paranoia. But if you are a journalist reporting on human rights and working in a country with limited freedom, for example, certainly tools that use encryption and anonimity such as TOR, Telegram, etc. are a must.
Personally I tend to have all my cookies automatically erased once I finish with my browser so that there is no way websites can relate and attempt to serve me with related ads. It's just a matter of habit for people who tend to be privacy conscious I think.
It is true, on the one hand, that if one does not have anything to hide then they should not worry too much about this stuff but, on the other hand, I strongly believe that privacy is a human right, and the more I can do to stop prying eyes of corporations to glean a iota about me, the better.
I am more and more convinced that EU regulations about privacy are far more superior to the US ones (does the US have any? Genuine question). I think the 'Right to be forgotten' is very good although, don't forget, you can still find stuff from the past by going to Internet Archive. It's a valuable resource IMO, especially for us traders.
Google records users' locations even when they have asked it not to, a report from the Associated Press has suggested.
The issue could affect up to two billion Android and Apple devices which use Google for maps or search.
The study, verified by researchers at Princeton University, has angered US law-makers.
Google said in response that it provides clear descriptions of its tools and how to turn them off.
The study found that users' whereabouts are recorded even when location history has been disabled.
For example:
Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you open the Maps app
Automatic weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where a user is
Searches that have nothing to do with location pinpoint precise longitude and latitude of users
To illustrate the effect of these location markers, AP created a visual map showing the movements of Princeton researcher Gunes Acar who was using an Android phone with location history turned off.
The map showed his train commute around New York as well as visits to The High Line park, Chelsea Market, Hell's Kitchen, Central Park and Harlem. It also revealed his home address.
To stop Google saving these location markers, users have to turn off another setting called Web and App Activity, which is enabled by default and which does not mention location data.
Disabling this prevents Google storing information generated by searches and other activities which can limit the effectiveness of its digital assistant.
For the past year, select Google advertisers have had access to a potent new tool to track whether the ads they ran online led to a sale at a physical store in the U.S. That insight came thanks in part to a stockpile of Mastercard transactions that Google paid for.
But most of the two billion Mastercard holders aren’t aware of this behind-the-scenes tracking. That’s because the companies never told the public about the arrangement.
Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Mastercard Inc. brokered a business partnership during about four years of negotiations, according to four people with knowledge of the deal, three of whom worked on it directly. The alliance gave Google an unprecedented asset for measuring retail spending, part of the search giant’s strategy to fortify its primary business against onslaughts from Amazon.com Inc. and others.
But the deal, which has not been previously reported, could raise broader privacy concerns about how much consumer data technology companies like Google quietly absorb.
"People don’t expect what they buy physically in a store to be linked to what they are buying online,” said Christine Bannan, counsel with the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "There’s just far too much burden that companies place on consumers and not enough responsibility being taken by companies to inform users what they’re doing and what rights they have.”
Google paid Mastercard millions of dollars for the data, according to two people who worked on the deal, and the companies discussed sharing a portion of the ad revenue, according to one of the people. The people asked not to be identified discussing private matters. A spokeswoman for Google said there is no revenue sharing agreement with its partners.
Add “a phone number I never gave Facebook for targeted advertising” to the list of deceptive and invasive ways Facebook makes money off your personal information. Contrary to user expectations and Facebook representatives’ own previous statements, the company has been using contact information that users explicitly provided for security purposes—or that users never provided at all—for targeted advertising.
A group of academic researchers from Northeastern University and Princeton University, along with Gizmodo reporters, have used real-world tests to demonstrate how Facebook’s latest deceptive practice works. They found that Facebook harvests user phone numbers for targeted advertising in two disturbing ways: two-factor authentication (2FA) phone numbers, and “shadow” contact information.
First, when a user gives Facebook their number for security purposes—to set up 2FA, or to receive alerts about new logins to their account—that phone number can become fair game for advertisers within weeks. (This is not the first time Facebook has misused 2FA phone numbers.)
But the important message for users is: this is not a reason to turn off or avoid 2FA. The problem is not with two-factor authentication. It’s not even a problem with the inherent weaknesses of SMS-based 2FA in particular. Instead, this is a problem with how Facebook has handled users’ information and violated their reasonable security and privacy expectations.
There are many types of 2FA. SMS-based 2FA requires a phone number, so you can receive a text with a “second factor” code when you log in. Other types of 2FA—like authenticator apps and hardware tokens—do not require a phone number to work. However, until just four months ago, Facebook required users to enter a phone number to turn on any type of 2FA, even though it offers its authenticator as a more secure alternative. Other companies—Google notable among them—also still follow that outdated practice.
Even with the welcome move to no longer require phone numbers for 2FA, Facebook still has work to do here. This finding has not only validated users who are suspicious of Facebook's repeated claims that we have “complete control” over our own information, but has also seriously damaged users’ trust in a foundational security practice.
Until Facebook and other companies do better, users who need privacy and security most—especially those for whom using an authenticator app or hardware key is not feasible—will be forced into a corner.
