For the first time in decades I'm close to getting enough vitamin-d. Let me have my gummies

lol the increment counter was triggered by the adblock detected popup itself (with a very useful and blockable unchanging ID). That was their opening move in this game: let's go

Also, adguard has been a champ with this on every device.

If you work in a sensitive enough area in the government any machine that should never have USB devices connected will have them physically blocked and disabled (with wirecutters not some software - epoxy works well). Machines that expect USB disks to come and go had allowlisted usb identifiers.

This isn't a problem for the security folk but I can definitely see it being a problem out in the SMB + larger non-international corporate environments...during pentest season of course! There are easier ways in for the Actually Malicious to achieve their goals.

The source article doesn't read at all like the main link. The headline is full of snark and it ends with a section with netizens lauding the achievement with so much sarcasm that the official article which was hailing it as the highest order of technological achievement of 2021 was taken down.

From the summary-linked article's "source"

Chinese network users called the incident “the happiest technology news in early 2021.” The article in the official WeChat account of the “Dalian Train Department” may have something wrong in the message and the article has been deleted.

Original article (not the Official one)Archived Copy
This is an 'article' that looks like the English version with little more than running spellcheck. Worse, that article is related to the original Chinese version in nouns only.

I don't expect much in the way of any review of posts by /. but this is sloppy even for them.

As usual, be careful what devices you trust with your data or, in this case, with your genitals.

Missed opportunity: Protect your bits.

I imagine a few sexted back.

His proposed solution? What if Google didn't collect or retain so much user data in the first place -- or gave its users the power to turn off data-collection and data-retention altogether? And "What if Apple — by design — made is [sic] possible for users to override its killswitches?"

That's not a solution. That is a set of conditions that only address what they see as a problem without considering or conviently ignoring how things work. AKA: Mental Masturbation.

I think this article actually comes from the Bad-at-Systems-Thinking-Dept.

This is a perfect example of what many consider a win is net negative because we discounted agency--which was never balanced--and that things are done the way they are for reasons that we have limited to no control over. (see lack of agency) We ignore them, are ignorant of them, or feel entitled.

Google listened to the public's issue with cookies and technically have executed a solution that fulfilled the discrepancy (privacy) as we perceived and described it. Whip out your privacy-advocate hat. Now put on your blinders because 3rd party cookies are the issue. Cheer! 3rd party cookies are a relic of the past. Now things should be great, no? No need for blinders anymore; take 'em off, and you'll see all we accomplished was giving more power to Google. We chased the dopamine rush of success without accounting for our role in the system that was unquestionably going to be modified to benefit those in power while technically doing what was asked. That is every CEO's wet dream. 'Do good' and great PR while holding onto as much power and control you have by all legal means—success to the successful. We folk looking at privacy issues forget that we look at the documentation (but not the article*) while the rest look at the press release news reporting.

Furthermore, there is a gross conception misunderstanding of what "privacy" is. It is not a "thing" or binary state; it is a currency. Devising solutions aimed at protecting it as if it were a thing miss the point and shift burden (a common systems error) onto the service. Complying with additional constraints requires capital stock. That is obtained from advertisers because they have our data for targeting and from data collection operations. SYSTEMS!

Your stock (privacy) is inflow for Google's resource stock (our data, enriched). Two feedback loops come into play (three actually, but ignore it). Solvency and profit, which are satisfied by stabilization and goal-seeking loops, respectively. Our enriched data is the resource used by google to satisfy the constraints of operating. It does this by providing access to 3rd parties seeking to market their products. That is enabled by another 3rd party, which is the mechanism that collects your information in a valuable format. Enriched data is more valuable, so they are incentivized to collect as much as they technically or legally can.

Back to the system: Then, there is outflow to the service provider. Google's outflow satisfies advertisers and information collection mechanisms. The site running ads is doing so to do the same thing Google is doing, stay in business, and make money. Feedback loop satisfied.

If I step back and call privacy a currency again, it is how we pay to use the internet. Do you know how that is a correct statement (not always practiced but in the context of good people acting with some decency)? When you pay for access, you no longer see ads?

See, omg look at these evildoers! If this is news to you, welcome gen-z, also you probably have them blocked. So why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? amirite?

Our goal-seeking loop is the genesis of the overall system. That is not to say at all that we are responsible. But that this ideal, optimal, or good faith fantasy in your head, is just that. Why?

Enter: Policy Resistance. Add more constraints on the service providers, the ad networks, the advertisers, and the information collection mechanisms. We have replaced one problem with another that is IMO probably worse or just as suboptimal as before. Trying to have a mutually beneficial process change the system in concert and coordination is all but impossible. That is our ego screwing everything up. If Google could all of the lawyers because they would never need to go to court for privacy-related stuff again, do you believe they would do it? If we knew where our data was going and why would you be more willing to share information if the experience was the same as today? Specifically, free and contextually-relevant.

The answer to that is yes, and here's why. We want and need 1st party data sharing to occur. So if we can agree that we need and can accept 1st party cookies are not part of this equation. The problem? 3rd party cookies. First-party cookies, if they were used with complete and practical transparency, sound good. Maybe an alt-text that gave you access to a report showing why you received this ad, what information was used specifically for that ad, what information was collected in total, and where it was processed. Would that fulfill all of the requirements? Google has something like this. But it is not 100% what we want, so we push that out of our worldview.

A balanced loop is a goal. The proposed solution above is a desire. I'd also call it a delusion.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to get there, to escape our egos and the resulting policy-resistance. In complex systems, changes are delayed because the flow of stock is not instant. It also is acting as a buffer in some situations, which is good.

Because a change of inflow and outflow can happen independently and we lack agency regarding how our information is used, when we attempt to "protect privacy," we can hurt ourselves in foreseeable ways. Foreseeable because we are using things that are not 'ours' like services to do work or just visiting a site for information. Journalists are paid.

Some are not willing to accept reality--which is why Google will have even more control, less incentive to make the process transparent, and our information will be used in black boxes.

That said. Nearly all of the groups involved are skeezy, corrupt, morally bankrupt, or don't care. However, that is incentivized and rewarded. It behooves us all to get on the same page. They'll still make money & we can feel whatever the opposite all of this makes you feel. If anyone thinks that is possible, well I'm a hobbit.

I focused almost exclusively on the advertising process because that is the only thing that will get enough attention to make some positive change. The bit about apple is beyond idiotic and not remote within the realm of gonna-happen.

*Also, I legit did not read the article and it could be this word-for-worod. The "solution" in the summary just pissed me off and I have other work I should be doing.

tl;dr? Running a business is not free. Whip out your wallet, see ads and get entrenched in one ecosystem or another, or shove these "solutions" up your ass.

Including the mention of an unrelated case that can reasonably be counted on to evoke an emotional reaction from us readers is bottom-of-the-barrel scum behavior. This asshat is not Aaron Swartz.

This is clearly a bluff to get everyone to pay $3.

But we shouldn't compile that list for them. "They" don't need help selecting a new target.

If $20 and a wall plug are breaking points I think that potential customer should do a hard second-round review of personal financial health. I don't disagree with you though.

Wasn't there some hoopla about some open floor plan that gave everyone stoplights they could set to red if they were (actually) working? Unfortunately, that system worked because if you have it set to do-not-disturb but you are browsing the innernettes for fun you are clearly abusing the system and might self-police.

I mean, the reverse is also possible. Presently I'm set to green in Microsoft teams. My boss must think I am awesome for working this late.

Good ol' metadata tampering.

Hang on a minute, your post doesn't demonize the intelligence agencies... So I must ask: why do you hate freedom of speech, the internet, and civil liberties?

Why does it matter which part of the GDPR a company is unable to comply with? Despite how scummy of a company they are, unrollme will not be able to provide services to a large portion of the world. Privacy advocates want it (including myself), and we got it. We don't get to jab our fingers in the wound and blame the company as a way to avoid any potential negative feelings about what has happened.

To reiterate: GDPR good. Unrollme bad. *massages temples* I chose this life. I chose this life.