Unethical Use of Customer Data

[Ignis]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that this may come off like a rant, and it may very well be one. Many people advise to never write or opine on something when you're angry, but I'm not writing an on-the-record PR statement for business purposes or anything like that, so please indulge me. Also, I don't have a blog and don't plan on having one, so I'll let the melodious symphony that is my blithering rant grace y'all instead.

It's an undeniable fact that data sharing is an industry of its own. And by that, I don't mean the sharing of information done by billions including ourselves every second; I mean data compiled on people, be it the kind of information you'd just share with anyone like what you studied/are studying in college, to private bits of information kept only by certain parties such as your medical records, and even trivial stuff that normally wouldn't―and shouldn't, unless you're some kind of celebrity or public figure―appear anywhere on record such as your favourite food and drinks.

This kind of business is lucrative, if sometimes unethical, but it definitely has a lot of uses (and abuses). Sending your curriculum vitae to apply for a job position? Your potential employer likely has signed up with a profiling company to do background checks. Planning to buy a new house or apartment? The dealer would surely like to at least check if you have any crime/misdemeanour records. This is neither new or a secret, and while you may disagree with the fact that it happens at all, there's a defensible rationale behind the argument that a company needs to know what kind of person it's hiring and a landlord needs to know what kind of person they're leasing property to.

But what if, say, you use a service and it shares, gives away or sells―none of which make any distinction for the customer, really―your details to a third party? (I'm not talking about anything related to all the revelations about the NSA here, nor do I plan to touch the issue at all. I've ranted enough about that; this one's about deals between two or more private entities as opposed to a government compelling a private entity to hand over data.)

People often say, "if you don't pay for a product, you ARE the product." I've long ridiculed this kind of statement because, even putting aside the issue of sharing customer data, many businesses that actually do charge significant money treat their customers worse than those that don't. For example, I loathe Google, but for a company that provides free services in exchange for collecting your details, it provides good services (as long as you don't encounter a situation where you need support from an actual human such as getting a DMCA 'strike' on your YouTube account). On the other hand, Amazon charges you for both hardware (Kindle) and service (ebooks) but can still give you the finger[1]​ anyway. Or how about telcos (telecommunications companies)? You pay them good money for your data, mobile, telephony and other plans, but hey, they still screw[2]​ you[3]​ over[4]​ nonetheless, and are definitely the leading experts in that regard.

Case in point: earlier today, I was browsing the web from my phone on home Wi-Fi connection (as opposed to using 3G provided by the mobile carrier) and noticed something strange. Without going into technical details (which I can provide if you're curious), it suffices to say that I found out someone or something was tampering on my unencrypted connection[5]​ and, after some extensive testing and a little research, came to the conclusion that it was no malware, hacker or government intrusion. It was advertising served by none other than my own ISP, done by infusing a snippet into our connection that would, among other things, get certain system information such as OS version and screen size.

Are you fucking kidding me?

No, the code injected isn't malicious or otherwise harmful on its own. No, my ISP isn't hijacking my connection and attempting to infect my PC with malware. But this kind of trick is as sneaky, intrusive and unethical as the methods used by hackers who actually do all of the aforementioned. And, to customers, this makes little to no difference: in both cases, your Internet connection is tampered with, you're served with intrusive advertising, and certain information regarding your Internet activity is seen by a third party. I know a thing or two about security and can deploy means to protect myself from malware and privacy intrusions, so personally, I could just shrug this off and walk away whilst laughing at my ISP's feeble attempt. (On the other hand, more 'sophisticated' attempts would only lead to the deployment of even more intrusive and less ethical means. This is a zero-sum game.)

But not the average customer. They probably wouldn't know, understand or even care about the issue were it to be presented before their eyes. Some might argue that 'sheeple' deserve everything that's coming at them because they're not willing to learn to protect themselves or something, but if you stop for a bit and think of blaming the perpetrator instead of the victim, it's fucking crazy that (often big) businesses can pull off this kind of faggotry and get away with it every single time. Some might think going down the judiciary road is a good idea, but that isn't a viable solution either: hiring an attorney would, in mere days or even hours, cost more than what I earn in a month, whereas the opponent is a government-backed behemoth of a corporation which, at best, would offer a settlement―and money isn't what I want here―and, at worst, could make my life legally and financially miserable by sending a horde of lawyers after me. This is a stupid fray to jump into.

Yes, I know ISPs hijacking your connection to serve you ads is nothing new. As far as I know, though, the idea that has been entertained so far mostly revolves around DNS hijack[6]​ ―which redirects you to a page laden with ads (as opposed to the typical "unable to connect" or "address not found" page) served by the ISP, similar to what OpenDNS does. Some also thought hijacking Google toolbar search results was a brilliant idea,[7]​ although they backed down to the concerns raised. (Of course, as is the typical PR bullshit spewed by a company employing unethical business practices in the first place, they didn't seem to be willing to come clean on the details either.[8]​) Where I live? People don't seem to give two fucks as long as their need for bread and circuses is appeased. Those that do, from what I've seen at local community websites, are so few that their buzz is likely to fall on deaf ears and be left unheard.

There's delicious irony in how, just a few days ago, a friend of mine living in another country was talking about how he kept getting weird, ad-laden redirection pages―which, after some digging, is apparently the ISP hijacking DNS and search results― and in response I said something along the lines of, "man, I have ninety-nine problems with my ISP and think they're pretty unethical, but advertisement hijacking ain't one!" For the record, my ISP has actually done the DNS hijacking trick before, although it was just a standard "help" page and wasn't as intrusive as to hijack toolbars and search results as well. What's doubly depressing, though, is that now, just a few days later, I found out that my ISP's already taken it to the next level. (They have likely been doing this for a while, but I always encrypt my traffic when accessing the Internet from PC, so I'd never noticed it previously.) And this isn't a trick that people could easily overcome by using a third-party DNS service[9]​ either.

The only viable methods I've found require either encrypting traffic (e.g. by using a VPN), blocking the remote resources infused into your connection (e.g. by using a site-blocking feature found in many anti-virus programmes or, if you're more savvy, altering the "hosts" file on your system) or protecting yourself against cross-site scripting[10]​ (e.g. by using browser add-ons such as NoScript). Simply deactivating JavaScript (also doable using NoScript, which I really recommend as it blocks most sites by default) seems to prevent the sneaky ad from executing the code, and thus preventing it from harvesting your details. The average Joe and Jane, however, tend to browse the Internet without tweaking such options, which means that they're protected by none of the aforementioned. ISPs and telcos, sadly, only stand to profit from such naiveté, as customer behaviour is very lucrative to capitalise on.[11]​ And maybe mine isn't the first to directly inject advertisements to let them spy on customers first-hand[12]​ (as opposed to selling customer data), but that doesn't make it any less detestable.

This is unacceptable.

In many fields, most primarily Internet business, it's a general notion that using a free service means you're subject to advertising whereas using a paid service ensures you're free from it. This underlies an assumption that advertising is equal to some sort of plague or contagion, something worth spending money to get rid of. Sure, some marketing firms and partners thereof realise this and are able to make viewing ads an interesting experience in and of itself,[13]​ and 'personalised ads' are actually often useful to customers, but there's a healthy discussion to be had concerning the methods employed to 'personalise' such ads. What the practices I mentioned above, however, are on an entirely different level: you pay full price for the service while the service provider sells your data to third parties, lets in advertising firms to directly monitor your online behaviour, and serves you ads as a result. This is no longer a trade-off between paying for a service or letting them serve you ads in exchange for a service. This is a condition where you're not doubly, not triply, but quadruply screwed over.

And, thanks to monopolies, often you simply can't vote with your wallet (or attention, for that matter). Many chastise services like Google for capitalising on and tracking your online behaviour, but if you dislike what a service does, alternatives are just a few clicks away (I personally use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine myself). Obviously, avoiding online trackers is also much easier than avoiding deep-packet inspection (i.e. spying) conducted by your ISP. A mere browser add-on like Ghostery does the job to keep most online trackers from building a dossier on you, but short of encrypting all your traffic, there's not much you can do to avoid ISP intrusion. And if you want to tell the provider to go take a hike? A great deal of people in most countries probably only have one or two ISPs available in their area unless they live in big cities, and those two might as well be equally evil, behemoth-sized corporations employing unethical practices.

This reminded me of what my mom said a couple weeks ago. She told me she received a call from the ISP offering her to sign up with some sort of insurance. Besides being sharp in general, my mom isn't without experience with this kind of offer, and she shot a straightforward question at the ISP person: "so, my details are shared with this insurance company, then?" The caller desperately tried to deny that, but I suppose they were just a low-level peon who may honestly have no idea about the policies up there. And, as expected, they hung up as soon as my mom said she didn't use a credit card. It baffled me why an ISP would make that kind of marketeer-style call, short of itself being a full-fledged telemarketing company on top of being an ISP. Which might actually be true, if the amount of spam text messages and phone calls bothering me even when I'm (well, it's "was" now) in class or working is any indication. Granted, I use a different provider as my mobile carrier, but the underlying assumptions remain the same.

It's also disheartening how much the average person cares about such privacy. Or maybe they only care when shit hits their buttons. To wrap up this excessively long rant with another one, I've also felt offended by how someone―almost certainly from the university I graduated from, either a fellow student or even a professor―shared my contact details with a marketing company. Shortly after graduation, I received an email containing a job offer. The same offer also appeared on my phone through two text messages, reminding me that there would be two days of interviews available for interested applicants. The most interesting part? Both messages were sent from different, throwaway numbers. (Those numbers belong to the kind of cheap mobile plans that are usually only valid for 2 weeks and have enough commission only to make a few calls and maybe a few hundred texts.) Also, in the email, they stated they were looking for "tele account executives," which I'm sure is just a fancy way of saying "telemarketers."

Now, I do have an idea who the culprit might've been, and it's likely that they didn't do this for profit. In fact, judging by the recipients listed in the email (hello, marketeers, you may want to learn a thing or two about using BCC in emails), they probably did this with a good intention―helping fresh graduates find a starting job. And I appreciate the thought. But this only highlights to show the inherent naiveté in the average person when it comes to this kind of issue. Frankly, this does nothing but worsen the situation, as it gives more and more companies free rein to do what they're doing.

And those of us who do understand the issue, think it's unethical, and try to inform the others about it? We get grouped together with conspiracy theorists.

[/rant]

Share your thoughts.

 

[Anayomex]

I think the same as you Ignis and just for mentioning this isn't actually anything new. I know about this half a year or so since security researchers have made reports about this. As you mentioned you must certainly do a lot of things to protect yourself, but it will be suspicius. Besides to encrypted traffic is important to use anonymous DNS server which does NOT log anything and all traffic is encrypted.

You can actuall test your IP with browser, to see if you are hidden. Check here http://ip-check.info. This test will test for being anonymous. This is only meant for information purposes since you don't need to try make all bars green since you will need to disable a lot of things which will prevent from viewing websites correctly. Some of thing are: disable flash, javascript, cookies, browser referering, history..etc.

Note: This is pretty strict test since is meant so you can prevent and make a lot harder for NSA for collecting data,metadata.... about you.

You can still partially protect yourself as he already said, use addons: Noscript (for javascript), BeefTaco (disable Targeted Advertising for google,yahoo,microsoft........, ), BetterPrivacy (keep you safe from flash cookies), HTTPS-Everywhere (it will encrypt every website you visit, if she supports it), Smart Referer (protect you so websites doesn't know if you came from other website).
All those addons are avaiable for Firefox, I think that most of them also for Chrome.

Of course, you will still need to use encrypted DNS and IP but is probably too hard for normal user so i won't write it here.

 

[pichu655889]

A very informative read; thank you for sharing Ignis. While this is an issue that I certainly am concerned about (and a whole school term devoted to discussion on Privacy and Security helped), regretfully I cannot say that I am well-informed about the matter, and neither am I able to do much about it. It is indeed disconcerting to know that one's personal information is being used without the individual's consent, and while I can somewhat understand why governments would want to gather information of their people, I still find it an outrageous intrusion on personal space, regardless of motive. A peeping tom is a peeping tom regardless of motive. That is how I perceive the law here views people acting against socially accepted conduct - as criminals - so why can they themselves (and whoever is in cahoots with them) peep? Not only is this preposterous, it can also be pretty frightening.

My country recently set up a Do-Not-Call Registry - a list of phone numbers that are supposedly protected by law from advertising companies for those who do not know, and yet, certain organisations can still send SMS advertisements to the numbers listed in the registry. What is the point of setting it up in the first place then, I ask myself.

I just thought I'd throw this in: My ISP blocks the websites of popular VPN services and the website that ana recommended for testing one's IP as Internet Security Threats. Makes one laugh. AS's i.want.tf is blocked as well but that's probably another issue with my ISP which I can just get around by using a VPN service - one that isn't already blocked, that is.

 

[Ignis]

I didn't exactly aim to rant about government spooks (and it would eventually get political anyway), but I knew it'd inevitably lead to remarks related thereto. The problem with the NSA is that, short of completely cutting yourself off of the Internet and not using a mobile phone at all, you might have to code your own kernel, build your own encryption algorithms and use hardware components that never landed on American soil at all. Short of that, the best alternative is to always use open-source software for critical needs, such as OS, VPN client, disk encrpytion and the like. Oh, also avoid mainstream networking equipment brands like Cisco (which, regardless of whether or not it cooperates with the NSA, sucks anyway). I can't exactly say I practise what I preach here, as even though I run Linux systems daily, my primary workstation still runs Windows.

Nor do I prefer to focus too much on the technicalities (that's why I provided short explanations in the first post and placed this under General Discussions & Debates). This is a rather complex issue that interlocks technology, law, economics and ethics together, although the first two are probably the only aspects that could really tackle the problem through legislative changes and technical breakthroughs. (Businesses will always strive for the best money; some will focus too much on short-term profits, some will ignore all ethical concerns, some will only care about benefiting themselves and their cronies.)

Still, I could offer a few tips―some of which have been mentioned by anayomex―that are rather easy to implement to better protect your online privacy and security, like by using browser add-ons such as NoScript, Adblock Plus, Ghostery, DoNotTrackMe, HTTPS Everywhere, MaskMe, Google Sharing, Self-Destructing Cookies and many more out there. All of those are for Firefox, though I'm sure other mainstream browsers like Chrome have at least some equivalents. (Also a tip, if you're concerned about everything Google does, you may want to use other Chromium-based browsers that don't have Google's hands in the finished product, such as Comodo Dragon or SRWare Iron.) Running firewall software is also a good idea―there's some that's free and still does a great job, like Comodo's. Finally, if you'd like to run a test and predict how secure you are, I'd recommend Gibson Research (try at least Shields Up! and DNS Spoofability Test). Let me warn you beforehand, though, that the way they show the results may be too alarming―even bordering on scaremongering―to the average user.

But, again, I'm not going to go too deep into the NSA issues and security- or privacy-related technicalities here.

On to pichu's post. Personally, a do-not-call or similar list spells anything but trust for me. I can raise at least three concerns regarding that kind of 'protection':

1. Spooks all around the world treat the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mantra as gospel, and by signing up for a do-not-call list, you're giving them a reason to believe that you have something to hide. Surely those who do sign up for such a list are a minority, and targeting a small subset of the population is easier than throwing a catch-all dragnet. Not less because those who participate are likely people with certain influence or financial muscle that are, for lack of a better word, interesting. You may be protected from telemarketers (and that's a big doubt already), but at the same time, you may be subjecting yourself to a different antagonist.
   .
2. Telemarketers may claim that they respect your privacy and would stop bothering you if you'd just ask, but that's 99% bullshit. If, indeed, the people who sign up for a do-not-call list have good reasons for doing so (e.g. they're important businesspeople who can't possibly let themselves be bothered by telemarketing rubbish), they're likely to be such delicious targets to telemarketers. If you're a government-employed clerk doing the bookkeeping for such a list, and you're underpaid (a very likely proposition), the notion of selling out the very details you're supposed to be protecting can get too tempting to ignore.
   .
3. If there's a government-sanctioned do-not-call list, and the law can mandate that the numbers on that list never be subjected to telemarketing misuses, why not extend such protection to all phone numbers in the country? Why not declare unlawful the practice of selling and subjecting customer details to advertisers? Why have such a special list at all? Fundamentally, what's opposed by the law is unlawful, and the fact that certain numbers are granted such protection by law presupposes that what the law protects those numbers from is an unlawful conduct. Yet, the existence of such a list in the first place, and the inclusion of only certain people (be it in a system by which who gets to be on the list is entirely decided by statute, or one where people can apply to be included on the list), presupposes that
   
   • the law/government acknowledges the existence of such telemarketing practices,
   • it views them in a negative light and is willing to provide judicial protection, but sadly,
   • the law is not for everyone.

But I digress. Let's not get political. On the subject of site blocking, mine also blocks proxy sites and isn't ashamed to state "proxies" among their list of blocked sites. As far as I know, this isn't an opt-out system either. It also blocks glype.org, which by itself doesn't provide any proxy service, but merely provides a proxy script for you to use, i.e. you need to figure out how to run it on your system or server to provide a proxy service for others, not yourself. This is doubly useless as people who has enough tech know-how to run a proxy on their system likely have no problem at all getting past ISP blockade. But of course, the usual bogeymen―that proxies, VPN and other anonymising services are used by bad chumps―are always brought up. This despite that what many ISPs do are arguably less ethical than actual hackers compromising your system and stealing your private details. The only difference may be that the ISP isn't interested in draining your bank account balance. Not directly, that is.

As about VPN, if you're willing to go through the trouble of learning, I suggest you rent a cheap server and run your very own VPN. Sure, it may not have the dynamic IPs employed by VPN services, but it's likely going to be cheaper than most VPN services out there, and you can control your logs as you wish. A little Linux knowledge goes a long way.

 

[Will98]

Ignis... are you complaining about your cell phone data usage again? <=== lame jest based on observance of thread title.

Back to topic. Regarding what goes on here in corporate "'Murica", everyone's data is for profit. Ethics are out the window except.... except if questionable practices are brought to light by a 3rd party. Then ethics are pulled back through the window, PR is exercised with a front of aplogy and reassurance about customer privacy. It's also a waiting game. Test waters, get caught, throw out defense, retreat, wait and then strike again.

Once your data is obtained, you are the man's puppy dog.

My hay penny there.

Edit: +1 for the thread. Excellent topic for discussion due to the ongoing battle with data privacy.

 

[nanashi1]

Well dunno guys, but this is actually not new: Hey, you've think that the internet from which group developed is. - Yes, from the military (The interent was originally than such goal developed). - Where for they then no big deal is the privacy data from the civilians to take/spying - actually in the time where we about this theme speak, are already a complete army of agents (/person!) on our network...

Actually this should at everyone naturally be: Who a phone, PC, laptop (Short said: What with the digital network connected is.) has, that she/he anytime count has; that sooner or later on his/her communication-device hacked will. - So are they (Pigs!!!)...~>

 

[wehasband]

Sometimes I get surprised at the number of people who prefer to not pay much attention to where their personal data end up. Until it gets messy and the public gets involved. But I'm just parroting what Ignis said so I'll just say this; Loopholes exist in every man-made system. These include laws and rules of conduct such as ethics. Also business and ethics usually don't go well together since they can both be used for personal profit. I'm not saying that ethics not worth fighting for but there are times when the 'common good' disagrees with the individual.
In the end, what I'm trying to say is, while Ignis raises valid points in his argument, the system will sort itself out eventually, for better or for worse. Businesses will always attempt to slip poison in out bodies, our minds, but at the same time the system adapts to keep those toxins out. It would be nice if everyone is as careful and wise as Ignis but there will always be the sweet allure of fast food..

Do you know how much cholesterol there is in a morsel of fried potato?

 

[Ignis]

Ignis... are you complaining about your cell phone data usage again? <=== lame jest based on observance of thread title.

Back to topic. Regarding what goes on here in corporate "'Murica", everyone's data is for profit. Ethics are out the window except.... except if questionable practices are brought to light by a 3rd party. Then ethics are pulled back through the window, PR is exercised with a front of aplogy and reassurance about customer privacy. It's also a waiting game. Test waters, get caught, throw out defense, retreat, wait and then strike again.

Once your data is obtained, you are the man's puppy dog.

My hay penny there.

Edit: +1 for the thread. Excellent topic for discussion due to the ongoing battle with data privacy.

Why yes, I have a thing or two to say about my mobile carrier's data plans, but at least I haven't found evidence of them tampering with my connection.

It's probably hard to expect ethics when there's very little competition in the broadband market. It certainly doesn't help that the body charged with regulating such principles as net neutrality and supposedly increasing competition tends to pursue trivial matters for years, resulting in corporations getting away with what may be a violation of net neutrality rules without much effort in conducting investigations. Saying this causes a lack of encouragement for actual competition would be an understatement. Now, I'm not saying this only happens in America, Inc. In pretty much every country I've read/heard/studied a thing or two about the internet therein, telco monopolies and a lack of competition when it comes to internet services seem to be the usual trend.

But you're right that there's little to no hope in 'securing' your data once you hand it over. Smith v. Maryland, the case most often brought up to justify warrantless dragnet and surveillance, quashes the notion that "people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," because "[a]ll telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed." Now, Smith v. MD has often been rightfully criticised simply for the fact that customer data back in 1979 cannot possibly be compared to what it's like today, but nonetheless, this interpretation of what people refer to as the "third-party doctrine" laid out the fact that "the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial."

In a simple, legalese-free deduction, even though there's still a bustling debate over whether or not the case is still valid and whether or not the feds obtaining your data through dragnet surveillance violates the Fourth (which I won't even get to since we're not talking about government surveillance here), there's the established principle that the data you give to a company whose services you're using is given voluntarily. Which is true. But sometimes you just don't have a choice. Online services like Google and Facebook often provide you with an opt-out function. I don't personally use Facebook, but with Google, you can also tell it to 'pause' profiling your search history. There are also other ways to block their tracking. But when you need to, say, make a phone call? You can't choose what information you don't want to give to your provider/carrier, short of using throwaway numbers.

And corporations are private parties, so they don't need to abide by the Fourth. In an ideal world, customers would be able to simply vote with their wallet. If a provider is known for not respecting your privacy and your data, move the hell away from it and choose another one. But there's no such competition in reality. And, barring actual regulatory moves (which we can't rely on), competition is about the only thing that could make sure corporations self-regulate. Some have gone so far to simply do without, but 'tis a very connected world we live in, and there are too many things impeded by not having phone and/or Internet access in this day and age. Your study. Your career. Your social life and business relationships. Your fun, too, including *cough* porn.

Well dunno guys, but this is actually not new: Hey, you've think that the internet from which group developed is. - Yes, from the military (The interent was originally than such goal developed). - Where for they then no big deal is the privacy data from the civilians to take/spying - actually in the time where we about this theme speak, are already a complete army of agents (/person!) on our network...

Actually this should at everyone naturally be: Who a phone, PC, laptop (Short said: What with the digital network connected is.) has, that she/he anytime count has; that sooner or later on his/her communication-device hacked will. - So are they (Pigs!!!)...~>

I think who invented the Internet should be irrelevant. Sure, the US military worked on the first barebones of what preceded the Internet as we know it, but then what? Unless you're saying that they created it for the sake of spying on people―besides merely trying to create a secure way of communication as its predecessors were deemed insufficient for strategic uses―which isn't an idea I'd throw out of the window, but with all due respect, I consider such an idea tinfoil-hat territory. Also, if by "agents on our network" you're referring to the NSA, there's a still difference―yes, it's a military agency, but it has a different mandate and doesn't deal with conventional warfare as we know it.

Sometimes I get surprised at the number of people who prefer to not pay much attention to where their personal data end up. Until it gets messy and the public gets involved. But I'm just parroting what Ignis said so I'll just say this; Loopholes exist in every man-made system. These include laws and rules of conduct such as ethics. Also business and ethics usually don't go well together since they can both be used for personal profit. I'm not saying that ethics not worth fighting for but there are times when the 'common good' disagrees with the individual.
In the end, what I'm trying to say is, while Ignis raises valid points in his argument, the system will sort itself out eventually, for better or for worse. Businesses will always attempt to slip poison in out bodies, our minds, but at the same time the system adapts to keep those toxins out. It would be nice if everyone is as careful and wise as Ignis but there will always be the sweet allure of fast food..

Do you know how much cholesterol there is in a morsel of fried potato?

Haha, flattery will get you nowhere! I like how you added "for better or for worse" after saying "the system will sort itself out," though I disagree with the notion that "the system adapts to keep those toxins out." This isn't a purely legislative/political problem. This could very well be solved without any regulatory attempts if there were enough competition in the marketplace so as to send a clear message to corporations: screw up or disrespect your customers and they'll ditch your business in the blink of an eye. Of course, that's a very big "if" there, and a "free market" at its purest interpretation probably would exist only in an ideal world. At least as far as the telco/ISP market goes.

The web hosting market has considerably much more competition compared to the telco/ISP market. A lot of web hosting customers are also very opinionated and vocal when it comes to voicing their displeasure with particular companies, such as when they mistreat customer privacy or cave in to thuggish demands (e.g. bogus DMCA notices). That's not to say that home ISP customers aren't vocal or opinionated; a lot of them are, but there are probably more who aren't. In the end, no matter how much outrage is raised, if the corporation screwing up isn't willing to fold following the PR nightmare, there's not much the customers can do. Many of them don't have alternatives to choose from. And it certainly doesn't help that the behemoths are only seeking to always reduce competition, such as―to pick the US as an example―AT&T's recently failed attempt to acquire T-Mobile.

 

[Will98]

but 'tis a very connected world we live in, and there are too many things impeded by not having phone and/or Internet access in this day and age. Your study. Your career. Your social life and business relationships. Your fun, too, including *cough* porn.

It is proven that phones are best used for porn :D The HD cameras, the generous storage capacities (for an android anyway), and the tablet size screens!

I find it enjoyable to read about T-Mobile raping AT&T. AT&T can go back to hell from which they came... or I just need to move to a place where phone companies actually appreciates customers purchasing contracts.

Since we all shifted to phone usage and privacy I will say that most... if not all phone apps that use data, have a small screen or window that displays what data the phone app will use. Lots of people just hit the "I read this/agree" button and think nothing of it. Next thing they know, their names, hair/eye color, last person talked to, about what and last thing they fapped to right on their G00gle +

But in a cynical way of finding, *cough* things of erotic nature by internet usage and network data, I myself would become a corporate defendant anyway and say that I did not violate your privacy and I did not mis-use your data. By your previous history and preferences provided by your browser cookies, I predicted you posting your stuff on Facebook and Twitter for all the world to see and was first in line to share it.

 

[Ignis]

I honestly didn't expect the DoJ to intervene to the extent of killing off the acquisition attempt and even leaving AT&T with a $4 billion hole (though that's probably pocket change for them...). After the SBC/AT&T giant merger, when news arose that AT&T announced plans to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion, I was kinda convinced that eventually Comcast, Verizon and other major telcos would follow suit, resulting in an almost-absolute, nationwide monopoly over the telco/ISP market under AT&T's banner. The only 'competitors' left, then, would be smaller providers like Sonic as the newborn telco conglomerate would also block Google Fibre from entering the market. I don't think that kind of imagination is too far a stretch...

As about phone data usage, you've probably heard how Google added and then lifted a feature for Android which made it possible to select individual permissions for apps. Instead of being presented with an "accept it or leave it" kind of choice when apps ask for a set of permissions, users would be able to selectively enable certain permissions only. For example, that porn puzzle game you're about to install asks for GPS and network access, which is unnecessary, so you can choose to disable those permissions while still being able to use the app. It's unfortunate that Google lifted the feature, though, so if you want that game no matter what, you have to risk letting it access your connectivity.

Throughout the debate concerning this issue, I've seen some developers defend Google's decision by a rationale that goes like, "the average user doesn't understand complex permission settings, so if they disable certain access which they deem is unnecessary but actually helps improve an app's usability, they may think the app fails to deliver its promise and in turn give it a low rating in the Play Store." This is a valid point; as it stands, there are already too many users complaining about apps in the Play Store when they're clearly the ones who shouldn't be let go near electronic devices. Similarly, there are too many ratings―whether good or bad―whose feedback looks like it was given by 5-year-olds who found their babysitter's phone.

But I still think the decision was an unfortunate one, because the existence of such a feature would force any self-respecting developer to come clean and be transparent about app permissions. Who knows, they could also educate the average Jane and Joe in the process if they could explain in simple layman's terms what their apps do, what permissions they need and why they need such permissions.

 

[nanashi1]

I think who invented the Internet should be irrelevant. Sure, the US military worked on the first barebones of what preceded the Internet as we know it, but then what? Unless you're saying that they created it for the sake of spying on people―besides merely trying to create a secure way of communication as its predecessors were deemed insufficient for strategic uses―which isn't an idea I'd throw out of the window, but with all due respect, I consider such an idea tinfoil-hat territory. Also, if by "agents on our network" you're referring to the NSA, there's a still difference―yes, it's a military agency, but it has a different mandate and doesn't deal with conventional warfare as we know it.

Your words in gods ears, Ignis. - But you've think, that some NSA-officers/agents outside of rule play - e.g.: Snowden like persons; where they show that the NSA very close with the military/government cooperating - and some from they sells their tricks also at the industry: Where then for they no big deal is in the personal dates of users to grab; what then for their profit directed goals use. - Well, this is my personally opinion...~>

 

[Will98]

Regarding the education of Jane and Joe in the US here Ignis: Any technological education here in the southern states that would benefit your average day user would be amazing. Working my way through first year computer science and engineering class was hell. Only 4 people in my entire class, including myself, just played games and watched tv. We already knew more than the instructor could provide for the class. Everyone else was in the magical plane of incompetence... specifcally meaning, "My screen is blank. I think my computer turned off. How do I turn it back on?....".

Unfortunately, people with smartphones think they are techno gods and can do everything. I find this very annoying because all I hear are people saying how awesome their iPhones are and how many apps they just got from the store.

Furthermore, the app developers defending G00gle are correct in their own beliefs. Customers/users do not want options. They want results and they want them fast. (I am guilty of this as well. Who doesn't want something to happen immediately?) Any options that are not screen brightness, theme color and upload to social networks are deemed too excessive. Very few users will take the time to flip through options settings and configure an application to have a balance between privacy and usability. As long as they check that little box that says "Default Install", not one care is given and any developer or agency can include anything they want with that application.

 

[pichu655889]

As long as they check that little box that says "Default Install", not one care is given and any developer or agency can include anything they want with that application.

And I am guilty of just that. Especially so when it comes to installing computer programs.

 

[Ignis]

Your words in gods ears, Ignis. - But you've think, that some NSA-officers/agents outside of rule play - e.g.: Snowden like persons; where they show that the NSA very close with the military/government cooperating - and some from they sells their tricks also at the industry: Where then for they no big deal is in the personal dates of users to grab; what then for their profit directed goals use. - Well, this is my personally opinion...~>

Ah, that's what you meant. That's entirely possible, of course, though as it stands intelligence and law enforcement agencies are more often consumers than suppliers in the unethical data/profiling market. As in, they get data from companies like telcos, ISPs and social networking services rather than sell their compiled/profiled data to advertisers. (Of course, there could be one or two rogue employees every now and then, but I don't think there's been anything like that revealed by the Snowden leaks. I might've missed a thing or two, so feel free to point me to news/articles/whatever providing evidence for such a practice.)

Regarding the education of Jane and Joe in the US here Ignis: Any technological education here in the southern states that would benefit your average day user would be amazing. Working my way through first year computer science and engineering class was hell. Only 4 people in my entire class, including myself, just played games and watched tv. We already knew more than the instructor could provide for the class. Everyone else was in the magical plane of incompetence... specifcally meaning, "My screen is blank. I think my computer turned off. How do I turn it back on?....".

I agree, though I don't think it needs to necessarily be confined to the southern states. It's probably the same in most places, save for perhaps areas like Silicon Valley. Not that I can entirely blame them. There's an entirely defensible rationale behind choosing a major you don't know anything about because you want to learn. It's not necessarily bad, is it? I mean, I would cheer on people passionately studying to become engineers with dreams of―for example―opening start-up Internet businesses or living a cosy life in Silicon Valley, even though they lack the knack, rather than people passionately studying to become lawyers blinded by dreams of how easy it must be to make money in the most litigious society on Earth.

Every country needs more engineers than lawyers. Initiatives such as Codeacademy and MIT's Scratch are nice. Teaching kids to code from scratch (ha!) as opposed to always using readily-available solutions is a brilliant move, as it's not the coding skill itself that's most important: it's teaching people―especially kids―to think in algorithms. Solving problems in a 'mental flowchart' kind of train of thoughts could go a long way in helping people utilise their minds.

Unfortunately, people with smartphones think they are techno gods and can do everything. I find this very annoying because all I hear are people saying how awesome their iPhones are and how many apps they just got from the store.

Furthermore, the app developers defending G00gle are correct in their own beliefs. Customers/users do not want options. They want results and they want them fast. (I am guilty of this as well. Who doesn't want something to happen immediately?) Any options that are not screen brightness, theme color and upload to social networks are deemed too excessive. Very few users will take the time to flip through options settings and configure an application to have a balance between privacy and usability. As long as they check that little box that says "Default Install", not one care is given and any developer or agency can include anything they want with that application.

I find plausible the notion that teens nowadays are getting ever more tech savvy... but that kinda depends on how you define "savvy." If it's limited to "being able to use your computer to perform daily tasks without fumbling around," I guess there are more people than we like who'd fulfil the criterion. Sure, we have savvy 13-year-olds bypassing ISP/parental filters to access porn, but generally I'm with you on the issue with wannabe geeks.

To get us back to the topic about privacy, though: yes, I agree what you said about developers and the mentality of the average smartphone user (although perhaps I've sounded too much like an elitist in this thread), but there's also a problem in how some devs want their apps to do just about anything. Playing a quiz game on your phone? The dev behind it may want to serve you questions that better suit your culture/demography, thus demanding access to location data or, at least, reading your IP address geolocation (as opposed to treating IP addresses indifferently beyond the simple boolean question of whether a user is connected to the Internet or not). This is a rather smart way to make apps more interesting, and is in no way inherently negative in and of itself.

It's the same with the "freemium" business model so common with smartphone apps. It's a valid business model, but when you talk advertising, you talk profiling. It's the mission of each and every advertiser to serve ads accurately, predict who will like and dislike certain ads, and use whatever information they have their hands on to achieve that result. No, developers needn't be necessarily at fault. They can be perfectly ethical people who would never mistreat trust given to them by their customers. But it often takes more than just one hand to open a can of worms, and in the infamous words of ex-NSA boss, "[f]our-hundred-thousand apps means 400,000 possibilities for attacks."

 

[Will98]

And I am guilty of just that. Especially so when it comes to installing computer programs.

I am probably safe to say that almost all phone and computers users love that useful "Default install" option.

[MENTION=2]Ignis[/MENTION] My previous post does seem to single out the entire southern half of the states, but I chose to present my statement the way it is. Based on my personal experience for 6 years in both school and the real world. It hurts... badly.

Touching back on phone stuff. Reading your post about kids being wannabe geeks reminds me of one of my better computer teachers. He said this on the first day of class: "Who all thinks they are computer wizards? Before you answer that, let me say that you are not a wizard by being able to surf around on the internet and watch videos on youtube."

Additionally, all kids will find a way to find porn. No exceptions. I did it myself. Internet filters, security services, monitoring services... cannot even stand up to the young teen collective to find material that is not allowed by their parents. What a large group of people do not know, is that "Thread OP will deliver". So why bother trying to hide/cover/prevent teens from finding it.

Back to topic now, all apps wether freemium or not will still take your data and deliver it to someplace where it will be used for evil... or mis-directed good. :/ I am personally okay with freemium ware. I don't mind a few advertisements as long as they are relevant to my interests. But when I log into G00gle and see pasted into a product review site that I like all things bananas when I only ejoy apples... it's bothersome.

So to push the envelope further here about freemium ware. How much advertising and data use through a free phone app or computer program is acceptable before an average person starts seeing their own face and a five star rating on some product review page through G00gle and additional advertisments by email?

Note: I am always using G00gle here as an object to refer too. I am only allowed to use it at work and I do not personally use Yahoo or Duck.

 

[Joyjason]

Sounds like 1984 all over again, except the catch is that the driving force is money.

Well, I'm pretty much your average joe, really... just studying for classes, with the occasional downloading of games that I want to play, and really no concern for the outside world.
Frankly, I'm the person you hate, Ignis--I really wouldn't care what kind of data is sent about me. My theory is that if you have something to hide, then you need to hide it carefully. Or else, it's comparable to someone trying to hide a freaking expensive diamond in a sandbox--a kid will find it sometime and fork it over to his parents.

I don't know where the hell you're living, though, but I can definitely tell that such action is unethical, and your government needs to do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, even with a monopoly going on, an ISP can't just sneak advertisements like that, just because of a poor excuse like "Oh, it was in the contract".
Forget about my dumb theory--everyone needs privacy to a certain extent.

But hell, if you're paranoid about being stolen of something important, cut your service with the internet or something--provided that your "something" is more important than enjoying the interwebs. Otherwise, I don't think we have much of a choice, right?

EDIT:

I find plausible the notion that teens nowadays are getting ever more tech savvy... but that kinda depends on how you define "savvy." If it's limited to "being able to use your computer to perform daily tasks without fumbling around," I guess there are more people than we like who'd fulfil the criterion. Sure, we have savvy 13-year-olds bypassing ISP/parental filters to access porn, but generally I'm with you on the issue with wannabe geeks.

Ignis pls.
You forget that a huge majority of the population in America has a MACBOOK.

 

[Ren Nanase]

Things from now on will only become worse. The USA are currently trying to develop a Quantum computer to crack the strongest encryption out there. As well as Most of these companies/ISP etc have backdoors and or share there data with the NSA.

 

[FinalPyre]

Things from now on will only become worse. The USA are currently trying to develop a Quantum computer to crack the strongest encryption out there. As well as Most of these companies/ISP etc have backdoors and or share there data with the NSA.

Don't worry. I doubt we will create a quantum computer soon, if ever.


Here is a fun video I saw a bit ago. Many of these companies have backdoors that the government handed to them, while telling them they were perfectly safe.

 

[Ren Nanase]

Don't worry. I doubt we will create a quantum computer soon, if ever.


Here is a fun video I saw a bit ago. Many of these companies have backdoors that the government handed to them, while telling them they were perfectly safe.

Quantum computers have been made but they dont last very long from the heat and have to be super cooled.

 

[FinalPyre]

Quantum computers have been made but they dont last very long from the heat and have to be super cooled.

Sorry, I mean I don't think we will be able to create a functionally useful quantum computer anytime soon. It could happen, but I doubt it. And even then, the only thing they will help with is brute force solutions.

 

[Ignis]

Was busy the previous weeks, let's see if there's still interest in keeping the discussions ongoing.

[MENTION=2]Ignis[/MENTION] My previous post does seem to single out the entire southern half of the states, but I chose to present my statement the way it is. Based on my personal experience for 6 years in both school and the real world. It hurts... badly.

I see. I'll leave it at that and just admit that I don't know almost anything about southerners save for what I know from my (few) Texan friends. The majority of my US-based acquaintances are from California, so... yeah. I guess you know the rest.

Touching back on phone stuff. Reading your post about kids being wannabe geeks reminds me of one of my better computer teachers. He said this on the first day of class: "Who all thinks they are computer wizards? Before you answer that, let me say that you are not a wizard by being able to surf around on the internet and watch videos on youtube."

Additionally, all kids will find a way to find porn. No exceptions. I did it myself. Internet filters, security services, monitoring services... cannot even stand up to the young teen collective to find material that is not allowed by their parents. What a large group of people do not know, is that "Thread OP will deliver". So why bother trying to hide/cover/prevent teens from finding it.

I honestly don't think the people who work first-hand in implementing Internet roadblocks seriously expect them to be perpetually effective. And by "people who work first-hand," I mean the techies. If a sysadmin knows enough to implement filters and blocks, surely they also know enough to circumvent them―and I'm convinced the knowledge to circumvent comes before the knowledge to censor. To relate, a friend who works as a sysadmin and has actually dealt with government contracts told me that the reason my ISP implemented its filters―some of which are indeed ordered by statute―is because it's a government-backed corporation, and upon enforcing the filters, it received some billions of grants... which turned out to be ten times the operational fees it needed to install the roadblocks.

As is the typical mindset with such measures, what's important is that they are seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something, practicalities be damned. This is part of the reason I started this rant: my hatred on my ISP quintupled, since not only does it implement roadblocks and intrude on its customers' privacy and share our information with third parties and serve us advertising, it also gobbles up our tax money. Oh, the service sucks, too. And we're paying to get such treatment. Whatever happened to "customer is king," as naive as it sounds?

Back to topic now, all apps wether freemium or not will still take your data and deliver it to someplace where it will be used for evil... or mis-directed good. :/ I am personally okay with freemium ware. I don't mind a few advertisements as long as they are relevant to my interests. But when I log into G00gle and see pasted into a product review site that I like all things bananas when I only ejoy apples... it's bothersome.

So to push the envelope further here about freemium ware. How much advertising and data use through a free phone app or computer program is acceptable before an average person starts seeing their own face and a five star rating on some product review page through G00gle and additional advertisments by email?

Note: I am always using G00gle here as an object to refer too. I am only allowed to use it at work and I do not personally use Yahoo or Duck.

I've never developed a single mobile app, let alone trying to make a living out of one, so I certainly lack such first-hand experience. Personally, I consider most ads a nuisance, regardless of how relevant they are to my interests (as I usually know pretty well already what I want/need to buy and what I don't), except for ones that are actually funny or amusing. When I do let ads in on my device, it's purely because I feel like supporting the developer (especially small-time devs) and giving them perpetual ad views may eventually earn them more than a typical app would cost. (Admittedly, sometimes I'm annoyed enough that I turn off the wifi and mobile data connection to prevent ads from being displayed.)

Now, as far as privacy goes, I don't really mind (doesn't mean I don't mind at all; I still do to some extent) because 1) I have dynamic IPs, 2) I rotate my emails and details for phone-related credentials such as the PlayStore. As long as an app doesn't have sneaky tracking cookies embedded or stores personally-identifying information such as logs, timestamps or geolocation along with its local data, I'm fine with one or two ads provided they're not obtrusive. To date, most of the time I see only generic ads like "download app X from Google Play."

Sounds like 1984 all over again, except the catch is that the driving force is money.

Well, I'm pretty much your average joe, really... just studying for classes, with the occasional downloading of games that I want to play, and really no concern for the outside world.
Frankly, I'm the person you hate, Ignis--I really wouldn't care what kind of data is sent about me. My theory is that if you have something to hide, then you need to hide it carefully. Or else, it's comparable to someone trying to hide a freaking expensive diamond in a sandbox--a kid will find it sometime and fork it over to his parents.

Well, it's not exactly a (or, given all the revelations about the NSA, "the") panopticon-esque surveillance apparatus I'm railing against here. The upside, of course, is that private parties (i.e. unethical telcos, advertisers and the like) aren't in possession of drones and other war machines, trained soldiers with cutting-edge weapons, or prisons. The downside, however, is that even in a democratic country such parties are often accountable to no one. Come calls for more regulation, the lobbyists will scream something along the lines of "let the free market do its magic," except that they've effectively killed off most competition in said market.

Which reminds me of a video from a while ago. This is stereotyped on what it's like in the US, but I'm sure it applies to most other countries with telco/cable/ISP monopolies as well. It was linked to on multiple tech blogs when it came out, so chances are you may have seen it.

And no, I'm not going to rail against you as well; I'd rather rant at the mercilessly grinding wheels of the machine than at the victim. To be frank, I don't think people should care about such data when they use services such as telephony and Internet access. You pay the charges on time, the company provides you the services you asked for. (whether the services are good or not isn't the question here). That is the only thing you as a customer need to worry about. Why, pray tell, must customers worry about what ads they'll see the next time they use Google after visiting a politically controversial blog? Such activities are not public. They were never meant to be. And they will never be considered public.

I don't know where the hell you're living, though, but I can definitely tell that such action is unethical, and your government needs to do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, even with a monopoly going on, an ISP can't just sneak advertisements like that, just because of a poor excuse like "Oh, it was in the contract".
Forget about my dumb theory--everyone needs privacy to a certain extent.

But hell, if you're paranoid about being stolen of something important, cut your service with the internet or something--provided that your "something" is more important than enjoying the interwebs. Otherwise, I don't think we have much of a choice, right?

I'm not going to disclose it, but I'll make it clear that it's not the United States. Generally speaking, Joyjason, and with all due respect, even your government rarely does something about it. (No, I'm not saying it's just yours and mine either. I'm saying that this isn't something governments commonly do._ I'm tiptoeing in an attempt to avoid stepping on the political line here, but I've been following the issue, and the FCC isn't known to bear its fangs at ISPs often. It may be somewhat more harsh to cable companies, but not ISPs. In one of my previous posts in this thread, I linked to an article about how Windstream backed off from its unethical move not because of regulatory problems (as far as I know), but customer backlash and PR nightmare (I bet it helped that influential sites like DSLReports wrote about it).

Specifically speaking, though, as I mentioned earlier, my ISP is a government-backed behemoth of a corporation whose over 50% of shares are owned by the state. And no, I'm pretty sure this isn't on the "contract," as they only started pulling this shit off beginning by DNS hijacking in 2011 or 2012. I've been a customer since 2008. And that's what this rant boils down to. When the very entity who's supposed to be in charge of regulating and overseeing of an industry effective helps some of the most powerful players in that industry kill off most competition, you can only expect toothless regulations. With real competition, regulations might very well be next to unnecessary, as the "free market" would be able to "do its magic."

Ignis pls.
You forget that a huge majority of the population in America has a MACBOOK.

I'm pretty sure they only account to about 10% of all customers, though atm I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistics. It might be more valid to say that the huge majority of Americans view Apple products with sparkly eyes, irrelevant to whether they own any such product or not. Either way, that doesn't really guarantee savvy-ness or lack thereof. I know some very respectable security experts, for example, who do carry a Macbook to places like conferences. I wouldn't doubt their technical skills, though the first time I found out about it my insides did loudly scream "WHY." I kinda concluded―arbitrarily―that iPads, Macbooks and other Apple products are more like toys to them. They probably know everything that's bad about them, but they're filthy rich anyway and those products look/feel/smell(?)/taste(?) nice, so hey, why not get one or two.

Things from now on will only become worse. The USA are currently trying to develop a Quantum computer to crack the strongest encryption out there. As well as Most of these companies/ISP etc have backdoors and or share there data with the NSA.

Sorry, I mean I don't think we will be able to create a functionally useful quantum computer anytime soon. It could happen, but I doubt it. And even then, the only thing they will help with is brute force solutions.

I don't think quantum computers should be our utmost concern. As Final correctly noted, they'll probably only be good for bruteforcing and generally breaking in, but those are tasks that will likely require tailored targeting. Not the kind of mass dragnet surveillance, which is more worrying. Even without quantum computers, the NSA already has the Tailored Access Operations programme to basically implement any kind of backdoor it wishes, even on hardware level. And, as the name suggests, it's a targeted operation.

If you like worrying yourself to sleepless nights, it might be better to worry about data upstream collection and hardware-level backdoors before quantum computers. If, with such backdoors and authorities a party manages to grab whatever it is you're trying to encrypt (emails, files, whatever) in its plain form before encryption, no encryption is going to protect you. Quantum computers or not. Endpoints matter as much if not more.

 

[Ren Nanase]

I have been doing some reading and there is a Linux version that pretty much adds a self destruct password on your encrypted HD.
I am not sure if it is worth encrypting my HD or not so it needs a PW on boot

 

[Joyjason]

Why, pray tell, must customers worry about what ads they'll see the next time they use Google after visiting a politically controversial blog? Such activities are not public. They were never meant to be. And they will never be considered public.

You're right. It's creepy. The creepiest thing I remember is when I accessed Google Maps on a travel bus that has internet access (which, its mechanics, I have no idea how the hell that works), Google manages to locate me in my bus on the freaking highway that I'm traveling down on. That's probably not as serious as selling off customer's data to other third parties, but it's not really a good feeling.

Even your government rarely does something about it.

...Touche

Specifically speaking, though, as I mentioned earlier, my ISP is a government-backed behemoth of a corporation whose over 50% of shares are owned by the state. And no, I'm pretty sure this isn't on the "contract," as they only started pulling this shit off beginning by DNS hijacking in 2011 or 2012. I've been a customer since 2008. And that's what this rant boils down to. When the very entity who's supposed to be in charge of regulating and overseeing of an industry

Wow... this is totally worth ranting about. I'm not into politics, but I DO know that any form of society (regardless of what kind of politics are involved) revolve around a social contract stating that the citizens agree to abide by the government's laws as long as the government PROTECTS them. Some protection you're getting, huh?

I'm pretty sure they only account to about 10% of all customers, though atm I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistics. It might be more valid to say that the huge majority of Americans view Apple products with sparkly eyes, irrelevant to whether they own any such product or not. Either way, that doesn't really guarantee savvy-ness or lack thereof. I know some very respectable security experts, for example, who do carry a Macbook to places like conferences. I wouldn't doubt their technical skills, though the first time I found out about it my insides did loudly scream "WHY." I kinda concluded―arbitrarily―that iPads, Macbooks and other Apple products are more like toys to them. They probably know everything that's bad about them, but they're filthy rich anyway and those products look/feel/smell(?)/taste(?) nice, so hey, why not get one or two.

I'm gonna have to argue with this one and state that the people who only have a Mac computer are pretty much ignorant about how information technology works. I mean, my mom and my sister doesn't even know what I mean by "cmd", and my dad constantly questions why Internet Explorer is so slow.
Same with a lot of peers in my school (for the reference, I attend a school focused on Healthcare), who all own Macs, and have never heard of something called "taskmgr". (This includes my own roommate. Don't tell him I said this though)

Then there are some parents who think deleting the "Internet Explorer" icon from the desktop will make the kid not access porn anymore (although that's a problem commonly coined "generation gap" and doesn't relate)

You're right though--just because someone has an iOS device doesn't mean that they're horrible with machines. I have an iPhone 4S myself, and you've guessed it: it's more of a toy to me than something I would use in place of a PC. But I know how to use it well--I know that iOS 7+ is crappy, and my phone is probably one of the few phones left at v6.1.3.

If, with such backdoors and authorities a party manages to grab whatever it is you're trying to encrypt (emails, files, whatever) in its plain form before encryption, no encryption is going to protect you. Quantum computers or not. Endpoints matter as much if not more

This entire thread, in one sentence. (Okay. Three. you get my point though)

 

[Will98]

I'm gonna have to argue with this one and state that the people who only have a Mac computer are pretty much ignorant about how information technology works. I mean, my mom and my sister doesn't even know what I mean by "cmd", and my dad constantly questions why Internet Explorer is so slow.
Same with a lot of peers in my school (for the reference, I attend a school focused on Healthcare), who all own Macs, and have never heard of something called "taskmgr". (This includes my own roommate. Don't tell him I said this though)

I must disagree with your opinion about people who only have macintosh are ignorant. A lot of people who use windows are ignorant as well. Some can't even turn on their computers, let alone trying to find the task manager. <--- no flaming here. Just posting a fact.

Just as an announcement and a sage post. The NSA have been discovered to be using the angry birds app for spying.

 

[Joyjason]

I must disagree with your opinion about people who only have macintosh are ignorant. A lot of people who use windows are ignorant as well. Some can't even turn on their computers, let alone trying to find the task manager. <--- no flaming here. Just posting a fact.

Point taken. Let me reiterate myself:

Given the fact that an individual is given a choice to choose between a PC or a Mac, with no regards to his financial availability or bias towards either company, it is more likely for the individual choosing the PC to be more tech-savvy than the individual choosing the Mac. This is hypothesized to be because of more options or ease of access to what we commonly refer to as "computer administration" for a PC than a Mac, and has no relevance to the person's overall intelligence.