Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Privacy policies
5 views
Skip to first unread message
John C.
Sep 7, 2020, 4:01:19 AM9/7/20
to
Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
everything possible to violate that privacy?
It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
web service and noticed this.
--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts made from Google Groups and cross-posted messages. I recommend you
do likewise.
important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
everything possible to violate that privacy?
It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
web service and noticed this.
--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts made from Google Groups and cross-posted messages. I recommend you
do likewise.
Yakker
Sep 7, 2020, 6:06:33 PM9/7/20
to
"John C." <r9j...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:rj4pc8$337$1...@dont-email.me:
> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>
> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>
> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
> web service and noticed this.
>
Weasel words. Your privacy is important to them in what way? None of them
say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
--
Steve (--)
I filter using XNEWS.
If you expect a response and don't see it,
don't take it personally.
> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>
> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>
> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
> web service and noticed this.
>
say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
--
Steve (--)
I filter using XNEWS.
If you expect a response and don't see it,
don't take it personally.
John C.
Sep 8, 2020, 1:29:14 AM9/8/20
to
Yakker wrote:
They all think that your privacy is nothing more than an obstacle to
their agendas.
Some of the very worst TOSes and EULAs are for "apps" run on smart
phones and smart TVs.
> John C. wrote:
>>
>> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
>> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
>> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
>> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>>
>> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
>> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>>
>> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
>> web service and noticed this.
>>
>
> Weasel words. Your privacy is important to them in what way? None of them
> say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
Exactly. A tool of social engineering in a similar vein to a non-answer.
>>
>> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
>> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
>> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
>> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>>
>> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
>> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>>
>> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
>> web service and noticed this.
>>
>
> Weasel words. Your privacy is important to them in what way? None of them
> say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
They all think that your privacy is nothing more than an obstacle to
their agendas.
Some of the very worst TOSes and EULAs are for "apps" run on smart
phones and smart TVs.
John C.
Sep 8, 2020, 1:31:09 AM9/8/20
to
John C. wrote:
> Yakker wrote:
>> John C. wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
>>> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
>>> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
>>> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>>>
>>> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
>>> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>>>
>>> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
>>> web service and noticed this.
>>
>> Weasel words. Your privacy is important to them in what way? None of them
>> say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
>
> Exactly. A tool of social engineering in a similar vein to a non-answer.
Should have read:
> Yakker wrote:
>> John C. wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
>>> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
>>> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
>>> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>>>
>>> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
>>> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>>>
>>> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
>>> web service and noticed this.
>>
>> Weasel words. Your privacy is important to them in what way? None of them
>> say "maintaining your privacy is important to us".
>
> Exactly. A tool of social engineering in a similar vein to a non-answer.
> Exactly. A tool of social engineering and spin-doctoring in a similar vein
Mike Easter
Sep 8, 2020, 11:18:46 AM9/8/20
to
John C. wrote:
> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
> important to us"
It is important to them that *you think* your privacy is important to
> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
> important to us"
them, while they do whatever w/ your privacy works out best for them.
Also, it is important to them that you /understand/ _their_ parameters
re your privacy, so that you won't suffer under any misapprehensions.
That is why you have to sign off on their explanations of how your
privacy works around there.
--
Mike Easter
Flasherly
Sep 8, 2020, 12:42:53 PM9/8/20
to
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 08:18:38 -0700, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:
>It is important to them that *you think* your privacy is important to
>them, while they do whatever w/ your privacy works out best for them.
>
>Also, it is important to them that you /understand/ _their_ parameters
>re your privacy, so that you won't suffer under any misapprehensions.
>That is why you have to sign off on their explanations of how your
>privacy works around there.
There's a case, yesterday, that hit the news in light of the spate of
gun-play killings during recent civil-, historical-, gender-,
a/bi/fluid-sexual, and racial-insurrections of exploitative
culpability.
Google, it seems, is back to triangulating the aerial way of
connectivity pathways, among things I might hazard, with Google's
database not only of their own individual identifiable devices, cells
and handhelds of course, but perhaps with other bandwidth providers in
greater if no less identifiable signal substructures. We can only
best further wonder if, as a Chinese cultural agent, in some way
qualifies Google's expertise in such matters.
Rather, for one of collusion to have occurred, as one of privately
Googling within strict Law Enforcement activities, given more or less
something at times of an infantile grasp to conclusions of expectancy,
all apart of course good press for Google and affiliated governmental
agencies, for whom, access to Google's database of connectivity is for
the greater societal good of matters concerning your wireless
activities.
There would seem a catch, however, with perhaps concerns of liberal
rights and obverse counter-interests. The Google activities being
triangulated, as Law Enforcement ordered, were within a kill-zone
perimeter to encompass all device users within a feasible kill-time
and resultant practicality of the bodycount(s).
Jurisprudence denied these activities to both Google and Law
Enforcement, as it happened, for three consecutive reductive attempts,
for Google/Enforces to narrow the scope of the Google's triangulation
identities, in respectively smaller areas of focal concentration,
wherein you might normally think to operate your wireless device.
It seems the prior issue had surfaced, where an operative loaned or
inadvertently had contributed to a stolen device within a
conclusively circumstantial radii of an operative kill-zone;-
Circumstantially, not withstanding, then to have been dismissed at
some higher judicial proceeding, when the operative established,
through a lawyer perhaps not paid pro bono publico, upon first being
engaged by the accused, only after the accused was detained for a week
of incarceration. Remunerations, as such, whether there was any, as
with obvious discrepancies, I hereby note to disqualify myself, from
the actual news incident, released yesterday, are, to the best of my
recollection, hopefully not too sketchy to be other than a total haze.
wrote:
>It is important to them that *you think* your privacy is important to
>them, while they do whatever w/ your privacy works out best for them.
>
>Also, it is important to them that you /understand/ _their_ parameters
>re your privacy, so that you won't suffer under any misapprehensions.
>That is why you have to sign off on their explanations of how your
>privacy works around there.
gun-play killings during recent civil-, historical-, gender-,
a/bi/fluid-sexual, and racial-insurrections of exploitative
culpability.
Google, it seems, is back to triangulating the aerial way of
connectivity pathways, among things I might hazard, with Google's
database not only of their own individual identifiable devices, cells
and handhelds of course, but perhaps with other bandwidth providers in
greater if no less identifiable signal substructures. We can only
best further wonder if, as a Chinese cultural agent, in some way
qualifies Google's expertise in such matters.
Rather, for one of collusion to have occurred, as one of privately
Googling within strict Law Enforcement activities, given more or less
something at times of an infantile grasp to conclusions of expectancy,
all apart of course good press for Google and affiliated governmental
agencies, for whom, access to Google's database of connectivity is for
the greater societal good of matters concerning your wireless
activities.
There would seem a catch, however, with perhaps concerns of liberal
rights and obverse counter-interests. The Google activities being
triangulated, as Law Enforcement ordered, were within a kill-zone
perimeter to encompass all device users within a feasible kill-time
and resultant practicality of the bodycount(s).
Jurisprudence denied these activities to both Google and Law
Enforcement, as it happened, for three consecutive reductive attempts,
for Google/Enforces to narrow the scope of the Google's triangulation
identities, in respectively smaller areas of focal concentration,
wherein you might normally think to operate your wireless device.
It seems the prior issue had surfaced, where an operative loaned or
inadvertently had contributed to a stolen device within a
conclusively circumstantial radii of an operative kill-zone;-
Circumstantially, not withstanding, then to have been dismissed at
some higher judicial proceeding, when the operative established,
through a lawyer perhaps not paid pro bono publico, upon first being
engaged by the accused, only after the accused was detained for a week
of incarceration. Remunerations, as such, whether there was any, as
with obvious discrepancies, I hereby note to disqualify myself, from
the actual news incident, released yesterday, are, to the best of my
recollection, hopefully not too sketchy to be other than a total haze.
Mike Easter
Sep 8, 2020, 1:17:04 PM9/8/20
to
Flasherly wrote:
> There's a case, yesterday, that hit the news
What case?
> There's a case, yesterday, that hit the news
--
Mike Easter
Flasherly
Sep 8, 2020, 1:48:52 PM9/8/20
to
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:16:55 -0700, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:
>What case?
I wouldn't necessarily expect it on FOX or Breitbart, so, likely where
I'd been rummaging through the Idlewhilst...
Something of a revolving door for British fascination for luxury
estates at poker rates for the Hollywood rich & famous, along with
what latest 73-old-year stars, neither among small concerns, are at in
suckface over what unknown 20-year-old. But that's least The News
Business, overall: An article churned here today (yesterday) that may
be gone within tomorrow's (now) Fair Warning (especially when banging
them through TOR portals).
www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
wrote:
>What case?
I wouldn't necessarily expect it on FOX or Breitbart, so, likely where
I'd been rummaging through the Idlewhilst...
Something of a revolving door for British fascination for luxury
estates at poker rates for the Hollywood rich & famous, along with
what latest 73-old-year stars, neither among small concerns, are at in
suckface over what unknown 20-year-old. But that's least The News
Business, overall: An article churned here today (yesterday) that may
be gone within tomorrow's (now) Fair Warning (especially when banging
them through TOR portals).
www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
Flasherly
Sep 8, 2020, 1:58:27 PM9/8/20
to
On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:48:41 -0400, Flasherly <Flas...@live.com>
wrote:
bang-banging them through TOR portals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
8705225/Cops-asks-google-smartphone-details-geofencing.html
wrote:
bang-banging them through TOR portals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
8705225/Cops-asks-google-smartphone-details-geofencing.html
Mike Easter
Sep 8, 2020, 3:22:09 PM9/8/20
to
Flasherly wrote:
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8705225/Cops-asks-google-smartphone-details-geofencing.html
> Chicago cops ask Google for details of ALL smartphones in a 100-yard radius of a crime scene - but judges say police cannot use geofencing data to 'rummage where they please'
Ah; that's better.
wp article has some useful links about Sensorvault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensorvault
--
Mike Easter
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8705225/Cops-asks-google-smartphone-details-geofencing.html
> Chicago cops ask Google for details of ALL smartphones in a 100-yard radius of a crime scene - but judges say police cannot use geofencing data to 'rummage where they please'
Ah; that's better.
wp article has some useful links about Sensorvault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensorvault
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
Sep 8, 2020, 3:33:09 PM9/8/20
to
Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Chicago cops ask Google for details of ALL smartphones in a 100-yard
>> radius of a crime scene - but judges say police cannot use geofencing
>> data to 'rummage where they please'
>
It isn't actually /all/ smartphones, just androids.
>
>> Chicago cops ask Google for details of ALL smartphones in a 100-yard
>> radius of a crime scene - but judges say police cannot use geofencing
>> data to 'rummage where they please'
>
And, just androids w/ their location turned on.
- I don't normally use/carry a cell
- but when I do, its location isn't normally turned on
- and it isn't a 'smartphone' (older 'feature phone')
The article says:
> In one case, geofence data ensnared a man who seemed to be at the site of a 2018 killing in Avondale, Arizona.
>
> Jorge Molina spent six days in jail before his lawyer provided police with evidence exonerating him.
>
> Molina had given another man his old cellphone, which was still logged in to his Google account.
--
Mike Easter
Flasherly
Sep 8, 2020, 8:16:57 PM9/8/20
to
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 12:33:00 -0700, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:
>It isn't actually /all/ smartphones, just androids.
>
>And, just androids w/ their location turned on.
>
> - I don't normally use/carry a cell
> - but when I do, its location isn't normally turned on
> - and it isn't a 'smartphone' (older 'feature phone')
I'll carry anything as long as I have the freedom also to turn it off.
Buried underneath all that crap, the way I see, is a modest little
computer afraid it won't get its chance to get back up and out there
and be born again in all the glory of God's bounteous Light.
A microprocessor running Unix subsets, a thing vastly smaller than a
laptop. It's really a adorably cute little handheld, that can hardly
wait for me to hack it insensibly outfitted with only the best Applets
Freeware authors with ARM compilers are capable. (It may not be much
to some, but resources are still resources to me at least;- all that
tininess in one hand I find disarmingly charming.)
Oh yeah, just a little brownie ARM/RISC-class MPU that's colored dirt
cheap and unexploited, probably from a likes of Shenzhen Yuanchuang
Communications and Zhejiang Qiyang Intelligent Technology. Even
though, at a peripheral Pacific rim of representative Chinese
sponsorship, cheap may not be quite what it once was. Seems some jerk
of a clown, a worldclass blimp once with talkshow, saw fit in a
drunken rant to tyrannize what some former options were to indeed a
bigger WEB.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/arm-microprocessors.html
wrote:
>It isn't actually /all/ smartphones, just androids.
>
>And, just androids w/ their location turned on.
>
> - I don't normally use/carry a cell
> - but when I do, its location isn't normally turned on
> - and it isn't a 'smartphone' (older 'feature phone')
Buried underneath all that crap, the way I see, is a modest little
computer afraid it won't get its chance to get back up and out there
and be born again in all the glory of God's bounteous Light.
A microprocessor running Unix subsets, a thing vastly smaller than a
laptop. It's really a adorably cute little handheld, that can hardly
wait for me to hack it insensibly outfitted with only the best Applets
Freeware authors with ARM compilers are capable. (It may not be much
to some, but resources are still resources to me at least;- all that
tininess in one hand I find disarmingly charming.)
Oh yeah, just a little brownie ARM/RISC-class MPU that's colored dirt
cheap and unexploited, probably from a likes of Shenzhen Yuanchuang
Communications and Zhejiang Qiyang Intelligent Technology. Even
though, at a peripheral Pacific rim of representative Chinese
sponsorship, cheap may not be quite what it once was. Seems some jerk
of a clown, a worldclass blimp once with talkshow, saw fit in a
drunken rant to tyrannize what some former options were to indeed a
bigger WEB.
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/arm-microprocessors.html
Nicodemus
Sep 8, 2020, 8:29:20 PM9/8/20
to
> Ever notice how most privacy policies start out with "Your privacy is
> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>
> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>
> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
> web service and noticed this.
>
When are going to wake up numb nuts?
> important to us" and then they proceed to barrage you with tons of
> contractual legalese stating just exactly how they're going to do
> everything possible to violate that privacy?
>
> It must be that what they mean by that opening remark is that your
> privacy is important as a challenge to be overcome by them.
>
> I was just looking over the privacy policy for the Pluto streaming TV
> web service and noticed this.
>
Can you turn off your phone?
0 new messages