It ain’t a mass surveillance tool.the whole concept of "online identity" is basically tying all of your online stuff to a single ID.
tell me again that this aint a mass surveillance tool.
It’s a login tool.
It ain’t a mass surveillance tool.the whole concept of "online identity" is basically tying all of your online stuff to a single ID.
tell me again that this aint a mass surveillance tool.
Any source on that claim?Why is the EU is spying?
That was nearly 8 years ago. We are in the here and now. US legislation has caught up big time, not so sure about the behaviors and awareness of the public, but yes, as I've highlighted already, it is considered safe.The US was certainly considered unsafe for data storage prior to 2016. An accord called "Safe Harbour" was in effect that put obligations on US data processors to adequately protect user's data, but this was found to be lacking in 2015. I recall a big panic in our UK company to get cloud data off US servers.
Safe Harbour was replaced by "Privacy Shield" in 2016. Which Trump scrapped in 2017, because he only cares about the data of Americans. Biden scrapped Trump's directive in 2021.
It all has such a rag-bag history, I'm not sure what the current state of play is.
You may want to fact-check that statement hint it is not correct, and it isn't often a choice either.Apparently Google has stricter safety for users on this? Because they require a court order and Apple only requires a subpoena? That's a HUGE problem
Why would you rather have a government spy on you that can ruin your life in an instant vs. a company show you an ad? I can’t believe people don’t think these things through
You can provide sources if they existYou may want to fact-check that statement hint it is not correct, and it isn't often a choice either.
LOL, Is that how it works? You make a statement without providing resources, but those suggesting you fact-check that then needs to provide the evidence. Hmm, nope, you better check your facts if you truly think Google (or any other company) doesn't have to act upon a subpoena and only complies with court-orders.You can provide sources if they exist
It’s sad if that’s your world view. I’m not saying you don’t need to careful, but throwing all the governments in the world on one big pile is just wrong.As long as it has a back door for them. If you trust the EU for a data safe phone, that's being naive. The EU (all the governments worldwide) want no anonymity, no uncontrolled speech, and access to all data "when needed."
It’s sad if that’s your world view. I’m not saying you don’t need to careful, but throwing all the governments in the world on one big pile is just wrong.
In case of the EU: why did they just now reach an agreement for an EU law to protect journalists and human right defenders.
Why did they bother with GDPR which was exactly targeted and guaranteeing privacy?
Lol. You have no idea how governments operateI haven't heard of a government yet that has ruined people's life in an instant, at least not where I live here in Europe. Prerequisite for this is of course that it is a democratic state (= one that "belongs" to all people). When you live under the rule of a dictator, that is a completely different story of course.
So when I was talking about governments, I was thinking of modern 21st century European governments with a certain culture of rationalism, under the rule of democracy and human rights.
The reason I'd prefer the government (or a big company) to have my data is that it is more secure than if a small company (or a small town government) had it. In reality, the difference is not government vs. company, but big organisation vs. small organisation.
Small organisations most of the time just do not have the infrastructure, resources or knowledge to protect your data from being abused. On the other hand, it's much more unlikely that Apple or the European Union will be hacked.
This however has another downside, which is big monopolies and the power and knowledge concentrated in the hands of a few. Ideally, information should be public (anonymised) and everyone should be allowed to access it equally. When companies collect primary data, they could receive (research) funds for example, meaning they would be paid to get this data, but the data would be public, and other individuals or organisations could use it.
This way, everyone could have equal access to information and knowledge and they would be distributed more evenly. In fact we are already on this way and not that far from it in some sense, but it's also very complicated of course.
Still I am very sceptical of these plans and that governments read our push notifications and other Apple data. I think politicians should be subjected to much, much stronger controls. More people need to go into politics and it needs to be a field not only reserved to those who become full-time politicians, but it needs to be like voluntary work and there needs to be more movement (more people who go in and out of politics spontaneously) in there, with a peaceful, humanist and rationalist culture.
Lol. You have no idea how governments operate