Comment on [deleted]

• bleistift2@feddit.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You have the right to not own a car. But if you do, you must have insurance for it (in Germany, at least). You cannot hide behind GDPR and say “I have a right to my data. I must not be asked to give it to any insurer without my consent.” You also need to have a driver’s license with your name and photo on it. GDPR doesn’t protect you there, either.

  The bottom line is: Using a product may come with responsibilities or other concessions. You have the right to not use the product if the concessions aren’t worth it to you. You do not have the right to any product if you refuse the obligations that come with it.

  This is, of course, my own opinion based on my understanding of how the world should work.

  source

  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They can’t assign any concessions they wants that’s the entire point.

    source

    • bleistift2@feddit.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I mean dude you’re defending Meta, arguably the single worst company when it comes to respecting user data and privacy

      That’s argumentum ad hominem. If the law means what you think it means, it applies whether we’re talking about EvilCorp or SaveTheWhaleChildrenBeeFluff.

      Also recall the very first thing I said on this topic:

      I’m all for GDPR and really enjoy its protections, but I don’t understand this one.

      I’m playing devil’s advocate in order to gain insight, because I have no clue how this board reaches its conclusions.

      source

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m playing Devil’s advocate

        Don’t it’s obnoxious.

        source
  • 0x0@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Oh, by the way… you have all those rights, but from now on you can only have them if you pay 10$/mo, otherwise we’ll take it upon ourselves to switching on all telemetry and cameras in your car and pass that data on to insurers and others.

    Actually… it doesn’t even qualify as analogy, more like premonition.

    source
• pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  What right is being infringed upon? Facebook is saying your options to use a private service are to pay for it, or receive targeted advertising.

  You’re free to just not use any meta products like I do.

  source

  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s not about the advertising. It’s that you have to pay money to opt out of their aggressive data collection. The advertising is just one thing they do with your data.

    source
• garrett@infosec.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But there’s also no ad-supported cars.

  source

  • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Not seeing ads for GEICO on your car’s dashboard doesn’t mean that Toyota isn’t gathering as much data as they can about you via the platform they built and then selling that information to GEICO.

    As well as information about who you are, Toyota can also collect your “driving behavior.” This includes information such as your “acceleration and speed, steering, and braking functionality, and travel direction.” It may also gather your in-vehicle preferences, favorite locations saved on its systems, and images gathered by external cameras or sensors.

    Some models of Toyota can also scan your face for face recognition when you enter one of its vehicles.

    Source

    source

    • garrett@infosec.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And that is totally unreasonable collection, of course. It’s also completely incomparable to pretending that Facebook is as necessary as a car (at least in America).

      source

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        If your bar is “we only have rights when it comes to things that we can’t live without“ then not only are you creating your own arbitrary standards that is not reflected in our society, but you should be angry if you think that’s how things work.

        You have rights dude. Stop trying to win an online argument/defending businesses. There are limits.

        source
  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What does the monetization scheme have to do with it?

    source

    • garrett@infosec.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The point was that it’s apples to oranges. Monetization is kinda the key issue here unless you’re ready to declare Facebook a utility and publicly fund it. Personally, I’d rather we be rid of it entirely.

      source

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        beyond how it infringes on them

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • 520@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yet.

    source

    • garrett@infosec.pub ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Only cause they can’t interject ads while driving lol

      source

      • 520@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        They'll try, I'm sure. Tesla and law abiding don't go well together.

        source