Comment by zug_zug
14 days ago
Let me guess "opt-in" means checked by default and hidden 12 menus deep.
Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently).
Or opt-in is stored in some database somewhere and might "accidentally be misread" due to a "bug".
If they want real-opt-in then it should be a SMS message at the time they want to know, and a phone-number you can reach out to for more information. This would give an audit trail at the very least.
We have a number of Ring devices and are overall happy with them but your 12 menus deep comment is on the money.
Even workaday settings for devices are scattered haphazardly hither and thither through the many pages of their app’s interface and I regularly find myself having to Google for the location of settings.
It’s crying out for, at least, some sort of smart search box.
So “hard to find” for something like this is practically guaranteed.
I think there is an untapped market for providing "simplified" interface to important settings (e.g. privacy/security related) of various apps. Sort of a user-friendly settings-api for other apps' settings.
One of the best plugins I have in my browser automatically works through those cookie banners to select the least invasive option. The speed and way that it simplifies the process is fantastic.
5 replies →
Also any update resets your selected options.
And the updates are silent.
SMS isn't viable, this is about *realtime*--the cops are trying to use cameras to find or follow somebody.
And the reality is such cameras are designed to be pointed at public spaces. So what if the cops can see it? Using technology to expose that which is otherwise invisible should require a warrant, but I don't mind technology that simply provides eyeballs on what's public anyway. (Note that I feel differently about security cameras in general--they are often pointed at non-public spaces and access should be opt-in on a camera by camera basis. Cameras covering the front entrances, fine; cameras covering back entrances, ask or get a warrant!)
If the government wants access to a camera indefinitely, they should have written permission from the owner directly. It shouldn't be through a third party.
Or put up their own cameras on the street.
Good bet.
What’s the Comcast story? (just did a quick search)
was on HN a few weeks back. imaging through wifi and was auto enabled for their routers.
That can’t be what they are thinking of because (1) it is not enabled by default and (2) and is not associated with any price changes.
2 replies →
My comcast story is I have xfinity, and at some point the rate went from 80 to 120, and I called them on the phone about it, and they said "I've sent you a new user-agreement where if you agree and sign up on this link it's only $80 again. I read the link it basically said you they can 'share' my browsing data with 'partners' and such".
Really offended me on principle, but not $40 a month level offended, so I signed it.