| > Look, my name is Anton Chuvakin (oh, no, nooo, nooo…this is “pee-ai-ai” leak … nooo!!!) , and I had my main email on my website The key here being you voluntarily disclosed this. > For god’s sake, have these privacy crusaders heard of phone books? You can have an unlisted number. >Similarly, if my hospital wants to share my health data with a pharma company and they pool it and then use it to develop cancer cure and make billions – you know, I am OK with that. Great. Then the hospital can ask you for permission before they use your data. > I am OK with being profiled online and seeing well-targeted ads. I'm not > some of it may feel creepy (uncommon, unexpected, weird, etc), but there is no harm to you and there is definitely value for you. The value is "more relevant ads." You know what? I hate all ads. I don't care if they're relevant. The harm is, some company has a list of everywhere I go on the internet. They say it's anonymized, but it's not really. They say it won't be shared with anyone, but they have crappy security so someone could steal that information. They say it will only be used to help target ads, but how can they prevent an abusive government from accessing all that data? The best thing to do is just not collect the data in the first place. (Unless it's absolutely necessary for the service, and you consent to it in an obvious way.) This shouldn't be on gartner, and shouldn't be on hacker news. This guy's argument is a joke. He completely misunderstands, or is ignorant of, the privacy issues that led to the creation of the GDPR. |