So the 1 star is for inducing cognitive dissonance. I shall not be reminded that you know where I am and what I do 24/7!
So the 1 star is for inducing cognitive dissonance. I shall not be reminded that you know where I am and what I do 24/7!
The (albeit false) implication, is that when you're not sharing your location, /you're not sharing your location/.
These people likely believe that their location is private and only used when they /explicitly/ enable location sharing features. To us, that's obvious - to the lay person, it's not. It's an extremely common (and gross) dark pattern.
I'm not so sure. I'm completely unable to keep in mind the amount of companies that get my data and what data they are getting, when they are getting / using it, and how.
It's not just out of control, but impossible to even imagine.
eg Google, Facebook, etc.
People not using those services seem to be doing ok. :)
We only have their word to go on, and absolutely no way to verify, afaik.
But are you saying there's no difference between known bad actors (Google, FB, etc) and DDG / Kagi?
Zuckerberg himself indirectly confirmed this: https://web.archive.org/web/20211006190710/https://www.getre...
Google have been so far good stewards of your data so nothing to worry about.
https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-facebook-tracks-...
I kept getting the "eyes rolling look" when I mention my partner and other relatives friends I don't want them to post pictures of me online and I have very little way to make sure they don't. The only way is to refuse being photographed and basically avoid social events. You shouldn't have to be forced into antisocial behavior to make sure you aren't being tracked.
And I am only talking about photos, there are many other ways to be tracked and identified.
Depending on where you live, you'll still be on probably dozens if not hundreds of security cameras as you go about your day.
It reminds me about the furor over so-called "glassholes" who filmed people while wearing Google Glass. People were outraged when they saw that they were being filmed with cameras that were right in their face, but don't care the that dozens of (mostly invisible) security cameras film them daily.
If you do not have location sharing enabled, how could a company running an app know about you? I can think of things like
- the cell phone company is selling your location info to the company, that has your phone number via SMS
- Guessing based on EXIF data from previous posts and previous location service usage ("you're probably where you always are")
Is there something else I'm missing? The point here is we are talking about an app on your phone (not some Apple service or the phone company) knowing where you are
If it has access to bluetooth it can do the same thing, except companies also make heavy use of bluetooth beacons so that they have fixed points to log you at. The range on some beacons is so far that you couldn't even see them but others can log your location within a foot or so. Stores use bluetooth beacons to track where customers in their building walk, how fast they walk, what direction they go, where they stop, what they stop in front of, and how long it was until they started moving again. They can uniquely identify your device and keep detailed maps your movements over time.
If you give an app access to your camera they can see whatever is around you, scan your own selfies and pictures for clues, and even access your microphone. People have been able to get a location from ambient sound alone but there are also audio beacons that are used to track you which broadcast sound outside the range of human hearing.
If location is not enabled, or is not permitted for that application, they shouldn't have that data.
IP addresses are a thing of course, and VPNs can help marginally but not entirely.
A Prime Minister came along with a Finance Minister who strongly believed that Canadians should see where their money was going. So they took that Manufacturer's Tax and turned it into a highly visible revenue neutral replacement called the Goods and Services Tax.
People were furious about the GST. His government lost the next election by a landslide. All because someone thought people should see where their money was going.
From an article published in the Canadian Tax Journal, written by an attorney [1]: "The GST was introduced in 1991 as a 7 percent VAT, replacing the federal sales tax (FST). The FST was a manufacturers’ sales tax, which applied at 13.5 percent at the wholesale level to a limited number of goods and which was almost entirely invisible to consumers.
"The GST applies to most supplies of property and services in Canada, and is imposed on the purchaser. The key feature that makes it a VAT is that most businesses can claim refunds, by way of input tax credit, for most or all of the GST that they pay on purchases."
In addition, a Government of Canada publication also explains that GST does not apply to exports, in contrast to its predecessor [2]:
"The GST is a sales tax which applies to final consumption at a fixed rate of 7%. Whereas the former FST was a hidden tax on the manufacture of goods, including those exported for foreign consumption, the GST is a visible tax on the value added at each stage of production and distribution of goods and services – which makes it a multi-stage tax – and applies only to consumption within Canada."
~~
In summary, there were other differences between GST and its predecessor. GST has applied to only consumption within Canada, whereas the former FST also applied to exports.
Also, GST was paid directly by customers, rather than by companies (who had the option of making customers pay). It's possible that in many cases, customers ended up paying the same total amount after GST's introduction—in cases where companies may have lowered their prices to offset the new final total price due to the GST. But in other cases, it's plausible that companies kept their prices the same or didn't lower prices completely offset the tax, leading to increased prices on necessary goods and services for customers.
In the end, according to analysts and newspaper columnists years later [3] [4], people with backgrounds in economics concluded that GST was good for Canada's economy, as the change provided a simplification of the taxation system that encouraged investment.
But this positive effect is a bit different, though related to your comment: it looks like the positive effects of GST were largely based on encouraging investment, rather than based on the principle of transparency to consumers. These were interesting reads, though; thanks for raising the discussion.
~~
Sources:
[1] Canadian Tax Journal: https://ctf.ca//ctfweb/Documents/PDF/2009ctj/09ctj4-policy.p...
[2] Government of Canada: https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0003-e.....
[3] The Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-gst-hated-by-man...
[4] CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gst-not-all-that-bad-say-ta...
There was also a significant lag in the price of goods that were no longer subject to the Manufacturer's Tax. Perhaps the legislation could have included a segment that forced companies to adjust prices similar to how a dividend automatically reduces the market cap of the company that issued it.
Most economists agree it was very good legislation but politically the Conservative Party never recovered.
Wikipedia has a solid summary within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services_tax_(Canada...
Also, the whole “know where your money is going” is a highly ideological argument. I know where my money is going when the highly publicized tax rates are changed in a budget. In most countries news organizations will spend weeks every year, if not months, discussing the expected changes in the budget.
In the meanwhile, I have absolutely 0 idea what percentage of the money I’m paying to buy a coke is going to pay lobbyists and politicians to ensure they can continue using HFCS, and preventing proper labeling from being implemented, or what percentage of the money goes into advertising to ensure kids (and I stay hooked onto Coke), or what percentage of my money goes to ensure they get primary access to all the water in a region already suffering from drought, etc.
$4.13 is just silliness.
I assume Foobar8568 is saying the cost per unit is 4, and the price with or without tax is derived from there, but there's no reason to believe that's the case. The cost of something and the price shops charge for it are largely unrelated. The cost might be 1, and the shops might just add on 3 for profit. In the US the sales-without-tax pricing means they can get away with adding on 3 plus an extra .13 for tax. In Europe it might be the case that they can't, and the profit for the shop is a little less because VAT comes out of their cut instead of something extra the buyer pays.
We don't know. We can't know. The point here is that there shouldn't be an automatic assumption that the US way is better, and that including the tax in the price would lead to higher prices. I believe that's what Foobar8568 was implying.
Kinda crazy how quickly data spreads and how quietly companies share data and how little control users really have (without becoming luddites).