|
|
|
|
|
|
by F-0X
2719 days ago
|
|
|
I don't find his arguments convincing at all. The appearance of supporting privacy is not mutually exclusive with invasive behaviour internally, and records - even if supposedly kept private - is still potentially vulnerable to being hacked/leaked. The problem is they collect data to sell as this is literally their business, while true privacy is only achieved when personal data is not collected. |
|
|
The appearance of supporting privacy may not be mutually exclusive with openly invasive behavior, but actually supporting privacy is. I don't see the point you're trying to make but it seems as though your stance is that it's OK for X to appear to support privacy while actually invading it??
"True privacy" isn't the concern here. Data breaches and hacks are a security issue, this is an ethical one.