We should each take privacy seriously, even online, and there is a distinction between privacy and security. The latter is a choice, the former is a right. Despite that it is not feasible for most people to read the terms and conditions for the online services which they use, especially when these terms of service weigh in with multiple tens of thousands of words per document.
Private text messages aside, who really cares about data privacy, right? If your photos, contacts, calendar, email, browsing history, search history, musical tastes, files, thousands of status updates, likes, shares and physical movements are all in the cloud, who really cares?
Please read that last paragraph again and let it sink in – that is probably more data than your nearest and dearest have about you. Yet generally speaking, people don’t seem to be concerned that such volumes of data are out there and being used without our consent.
PayPal’s terms and conditions are longer than Hamlet! The vast majority of people will not have the time, or inclination, to read and decipher thousands of words in legalese to work out where their data is going. Ipso facto, this data is being shared without our consent, regardless of whether we have accepted the terms and conditions or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:20AM (1 child)
doesn't fortran 77 have "goto"? can't you use that for jumping in and out of loops or wherever?
(Score: 2) by jb on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:20AM
Yes, indeed Fortran 77 supported three different types of GOTO statement (although the assigned version was already deprecated by then).
No. That was one of the most significant changes from 66 to 77: GO TO was no longer allowed to jump into a DO loop from outside the loop.
The following was legal (and still an all too common idiom, even though already getting cringeworthy by then) in 66 but not in 77:
The IF statement will work in 66 or 77, but a 77 compiler should error out at last GO TO.
Yes, there's a "hole" in that loop. Hence my comment about "loopholes". I guess it wasn't a very good joke if I had to take all that space to explain it...