Comment by can16358p
2 years ago
> I sincerely hope that the next round of EU laws tackles this instead of privacy. It's just as big an issue, especially if you're running a small business.
This! Couldn't agree more. I believe this is a much more bigger, huge problem compared to privacy, which is preventable (users can choose not to use a service) but this can take down entire businesses because of data giants' crappy/false alerting systems.
It should be illegal for Google, say, to remove listing without proving, or if that's not possible, if they remove they should legally be forced to compensate for the damage done. (Of course Google is just an example here, applies to any large enough platform)
Maybe then they will take this serious.
> users can choose not to use a service
By that logic you can just not use Google. But that's ridiculous, as ridiculous as the statement that users can choose not to use a service. I believe it's impossible to live in modern society without having an account in FAANG, even harder than a business not having a google maps listing.
I just visited family in California and I was surprised at how many things needs an app now, and there is no alternative.
For example, I went to visit the beach, which is on a national park. Parking required an app. There were park rangers there, the location was staffed, but they did not accept cash or credit card. Just an app. And there are two phone operating systems now, Apple and Android. So no. Can’t live without FAANG. I ended up downloading the app on the spot and purchasing a pass.
I’m sure the park service does this for their convenience. And it’s so populated near the coasts that if anyone doesn’t comply, they still have plenty of people who would gladly use the app. They can get away with demanding smartphone use. You can certainly get away with not having a smartphone further inland, and not needing to depend on FAANG explicitly. But I know this expectation is going to creep into the continent over time. In 5 years, if you say “I don’t have a smart phone” you’ll just be denied service. Period. No questions asked. And you will be considered the unreasonable party by most.
> They can get away with demanding smartphone use.
> In 5 years, if you say “I don’t have a smart phone” you’ll just be denied service. Period. No questions asked.
IANAL, but I feel like that should be illegal.
Sure, they can set up an app and those who want to use it may do so, but for things things like parking there ought to be an alternate. Beach, national park etc is a predominantly offline service for which it's absurd to insist on using an app.
Especially for something that's on a "national park" — I don't really know what the "national" part indicates (not from USA) but I'm assuming that the govt is involved.
Somebody should go to court.
2 replies →
In my country the religious eschew smartphones, so every service has an alternative. I often have to pretend that I am of that group to avoid "just installing an app" for something as simple as taking a place in a line at a physical location.
1 reply →
Hell, in five years you won't be able to transact without an iris scan and social credit linked to your digital money.
> I’m sure the park service does this for their convenience.
Nooooo...this is dark UX to artificially increase the number of violators and collect more revenue.
I expected better from the park service but around here they've started making people enter their license plate number on parking lot passes too to prevent the time-honored tradition of sharing day passes. They're in revenue-generating mode these days.
Case in point:
I had to drop off a cashier's check at a landlord's office. Same deal-- paid streetside parking, but didn't realize it was app-only. I struggled with downloading the app on a crappy connection and couldn't successfully pay for parking after 45 minutes of fucking with it.
What am I going to do, leave? I drove an hour to get there and had 3 minutes' worth of business there. In the end I just ended up parking illegally.
To be any scummier, they'd have to implement paid parking at rest stops and ticket anybody who dashes past the meter trying to get to the bathroom before they piss themselves.
Half of NZ's EV charging networks require an apps which are only available in NZ's app store...
No you can't just use a web app.
This is pretty much the only thing stopping me from throwing my smartphone in the sea and never looking back, it's actually quite hard to avoid needing one to interact with society.
> I believe it's impossible to live in modern society without having an account in FAANG
Oh, this is completely possible -- I do it.
But it won't stop them from getting your personal data.
What smartphone do you use?
People get along fine without accounts in FAANG. You don't even need an account to use many Google services.
Increasingly, even public agencies require/assume people to have a smartphone now, either an iPhone or an Android.
At that point, you literally cannot live as an adult in the society without FAANG dependence, even if it's a third party Android phone, at least not legally.
You can't download apps on your phone without logging into a FAANG account in the app store.
22 replies →
Who lives fine without a smartphone today? See your sibling comment for an example.
14 replies →
Privacy is a choice? That's a new one, I didn't know people had the choice of their data not being leaked or sold by small and big businesses.
We can chew gum and walk at the same time, no need to throw privacy under the bus.
Of course privacy is not a choice, it's a fundamental right.
Giving your personal data to private companies, however, is a choice. You can simply not use their services.
> You can simply not use their services.
I love this liberal argument. It's the sister argument of "Well, if you don't like YouTube censorship, then you can start your own YouTube!" It is truly out of touch with how societies actually function.
This argument only works when you have lots of market competition full of small players where it doesn't make any difference which service you use. But large corporations can effectively become something like public utilities that function like economic gatekeepers in a way that even governments are incapable of.
It is also hostile and encourages/enables the hostility of big players. My presumption is characterized by liberality, but it's a presumption, which means I default to liberality, unless there is a good reason to restrain it. Saying "just don't use it" can either be unrealistic, or something like a move of last resort. We regulate business and have always regulated business for a reason, pace free market extremism.
The common good is the concern of the law, and protecting the individual is for the sake of the common good. Start there, and you might take a different view of the function of economies in societies and how they may or may not be constrained.
You really can't.
If you don't want to be homeless, you're either renting or buying, and in either case people are going to be processing your personal data. You're also probably going to need a bank account, which you also can't open without handing over personal data.
If you want electricity, you're then dealing with another company that is processing your data. Same for water and gas and internet.
Sure, some things are optional, some things can be worked around by buying in person and using cash instead of buying online. But a lot of things are just not practically optional.
> You can simply not use their services
Good luck with that. I get that you can refuse to email anybody with a gmail.com address, but lots of people use Google to host email. You may not be willing to upload your address book to Facebook, but the people who also have you in their phone book have likely shared that with FB through Instagram.
These companies get to know you pretty well even if you never directly use their services.
All my university systems run on Microsoft. All my future employers' systems will probably run on Microsoft. All public transport in my country effectively requires an app which is tied to either Google or Apple operating systems to buy tickets. Schools require students as young as 6 years old to have an iPad or chromebook tied to Google or Apple.
There is no real choice in our modern society to "not give your personal data" to these megacorps.
Wow, never heard someone ask me to cancel all services if I want privacy. That's new.
1 reply →
https://noyb.eu/en/telesign-profiles-half-worlds-phone-users
I did not gave my data to TeleSign but apparently they have it. And my operator did not tell me.
> Giving your personal data to private companies, however, is a choice. You can simply not use their services.
This is what I do, but it certainly doesn't stop private companies from getting my private data anyway.
There is no way to opt out of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36567329
There are a lot of businesses for which life would be much harder choosing not to use their services, and more services are digitised each year. Gov online services, essential utilities (water, gas etc), mobile phone providers, private health and so on.
It’s not as simple as “don’t use them”
Given that Google handles a tremendous amount of email (not all to gmail.com domains either), and that other companies maintain "shadow profiles" of non-members, or simply track vast numbers of people (credit bureaux and other data-brokers), let alone the vast levels of surveillance baked into the present-day Internet, saying people can simply opt out of services is ... profoundly untrue.
There's not need to pit fairness in business dealings against privacy. Both are wins for the average person.
The problem is that such large platforms work like utilities, but are governed as services
For example it is illegal for the water utility companies where I live to cut off water supply, even if someone does not pay the bills. It should be illegal for payment processors, search engines and other large internet platforms to take away people's business. We need utilities, not services.
1000%, the ISPs need to be treated just like a power company, not privatized at all.
I really am I favor of your suggestion. Next to that my stance is that big companies should be by law be required to have a human representative you can contact, especially in the time of AI.
But then we will face the original problem: prevalence of fake location spam
Not if you have to provide proof of your identity to register. Such proof could then also be a prerequisite to have government protection against arbitrary bans.