Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Los Angeles Accuses Weather Channel App of Covertly Mining User Data

posted by mrpg on Friday January 04 2019, @06:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the bleak-outcome dept.

"exec" writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

[...] One of the most popular online weather services in the United States, the Weather Channel app has been downloaded more than 100 million times and has 45 million active users monthly.

The government said the Weather Company, the business behind the app, unfairly manipulated users into turning on location tracking by implying that the information would be used only to localize weather reports. Yet the company, which is owned by IBM, also used the data for unrelated commercial purposes, like targeted marketing and analysis for hedge funds, according to the lawsuit.

The city’s lawsuit cited an article last month in The New York Times that detailed a sprawling industry of companies that profit from continuously snooping on users’ precise whereabouts. The companies collect location data from smartphone apps to cater to advertisers, stores and investors seeking insights into consumer behavior.

[...] “If the price of getting a weather report is going to be the sacrifice of your most personal information about where you spend your time day and night,” said Michael N. Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney, “you sure as heck ought to be told clearly in advance.”

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Los Angeles Accuses Weather Channel App of Covertly Mining User Data | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 43 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:42PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:42PM (#782481) Journal

    Frederick Douglass recalled of his interactions with President Lincoln: “The simple approached him with ease, and the learned approached him with deference.” Douglass wrote: “In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race. He was the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color, and I thought that all the more remarkable cause he came from a State where there were black laws. I account partially for his kindness to me because of the similarity with which I had fought my way up, we both starting at the lowest rung of the ladder.”

    Here. [abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:29PM (5 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:29PM (#782736) Homepage
    In order to judge whether someone is a racist or not, you don't look at a few examples of him behaving civilised, you look at all the racist shit he wrote.

    For example, I do believe that you have once written a sensible post, but that cannot, or at least should not, be used as evidence that you aren't a complete fucking retard - your whole ouvre is what people should be looking at, although only a tiny fraction of it is needed to come to the correct conclusion.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:34PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:34PM (#782778) Journal

      For example, I do believe that you have once written a sensible post, but that cannot, or at least should not, be used as evidence that you aren't a complete fucking retard

      To the contrary, a counterexample is a sufficient rebuttal to a universal claim. Here, it definitely means you aren't a complete fucking retard which is a universal claim. Seriously what is there to argue about?

      Ranter1:"X ALWAYS happens!"
      Ranter2:"Here's a case where X didn't happen."
      Ranter1:"That doesn't count!"
      Ranter2:"WTF?"

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 07 2019, @04:46AM (2 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday January 07 2019, @04:46AM (#783036) Homepage
        Being a racist/retard has never meant that every single thing you say is racist/retarded, your introduction of a universal is inappropriate. Have you really never heard the epithet about stopped clocks?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @01:56PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 07 2019, @01:56PM (#783167) Journal

          Being a racist/retard has never meant that every single thing you say is racist/retarded

          The actual label was "complete fucking retard" which indicates universality of the retardedness (and a rather deep level of retardedness as well), not merely that one is retarded.

          your introduction of a universal is inappropriate.

          It comes from the use of the term "complete", a universal term. Words have meaning and the meaning of that phrase runs completely counter to the point you were trying to make. I wouldn't have brought this up otherwise.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 07 2019, @02:23PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 07 2019, @02:23PM (#783178) Journal
      Moving on:

      In order to judge whether someone is a racist or not, you don't look at a few examples of him behaving civilised, you look at all the racist shit he wrote.

      "All the racist shit" is also just a few examples. What you're really saying here is that we'll look at a few examples of Lincoln being racist (which conveniently remain unstated in this thread!) and ignore a few examples where he's not. That's just bias.

      In addition to Frederick Douglass's assessment (and really a person who supposedly doesn't like black people manages to gull Douglass? Sure, Lincoln is a politician, but Douglass dealt with plenty of politicians by that time), Lincoln had a long standing opposition to the spread of slavery (public opposition to slavery from at least 1837 [washingtonpost.com]), had such an anti-slavery reputation that the South took his election as sufficient provocation to leave the US, and of course, the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

      I think this is an example of the dishonesty brought to the topic of racism. I don't believe you looked at Lincoln's "whole ouvre" (particularly, blowing off obvious counterexamples right away). Nor is racism a bit flag you set. The person who strives to free slaves (successfully I might add!) is most definitely less racist than the one who kept those slaves.