Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:49PM (#782172)

    There is a government taking action on behalf of the people.

  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 04 2019, @06:54PM (12 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Friday January 04 2019, @06:54PM (#782175) Journal

    I've avoided the weather channel app like the plague. Which is likely what it transmits to it's users along with the weather report.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday January 04 2019, @07:40PM (1 child)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday January 04 2019, @07:40PM (#782204)

      If you must use it, visit their website. Noscript, cookies autodelete, Ghostery, uBlock Origin and clearing your cache upon exit will do a reasonable job of limiting the amount of data you leak out to them (I say reasonable, because these addons probably collect data on you too...)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @09:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @09:50PM (#782251)

        ghostery? found the windows user... closed source "ad blocker" written by the ad companies. wow.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by zoward on Friday January 04 2019, @07:55PM (8 children)

      by zoward (4734) on Friday January 04 2019, @07:55PM (#782207)

      I don't get why people don't use the National Weather Service's site - www.weather.gov. It's where the Weather Channel is getting their data from in the first place, and is paid for with tax dollars. No ads, no tracking

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:11PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:11PM (#782215)

        Wow, only in america.

        In australia, the bom.gov.au site carries advertising - sigh!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @11:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @11:45PM (#782306)

          No, not only in America. Canada has no tracking either. It's a very reliable site and they do a good job with the weather.

          https://weather.gc.ca/canada_e.html [weather.gc.ca]

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:18AM (#782320)

          Wow, only in america.
          In australia, the bom.gov.au site carries advertising - sigh!

          Only in Australia!

      • (Score: 2) by TheFool on Friday January 04 2019, @08:53PM

        by TheFool (7105) on Friday January 04 2019, @08:53PM (#782229)

        Agreed, the NWS is the better option. That's mainly what I use (although I do have a fancy radar app).

        My guess is that it's because there is no "app". People can't do much more these days than type "weather" into whatever app store they have and poke the one with the highest download count. Even that might be a stretch, as I imagine some of those downloads came from voice commands.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by nwf on Friday January 04 2019, @09:45PM (2 children)

        by nwf (1469) on Friday January 04 2019, @09:45PM (#782247)

        The Weather Channel, Accuweather and the like get information from NWS, but they add in other stuff. If you compare their forecasts, they are all somewhat different. If you want actual conditions, these services update much more frequently. WC is particularly good with that, but that's about it. NWS's data is rather hard to read at a glance and they don't seem to provide a custom forecast to a specific zip code, just the general area.

        But I stopped using WC's app because it's just garbage. Slow, buggy, terrible UI. Accuweather's forecasts seem better, but their current conditions are off by like an hour.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:36PM (#782267)

          I might be wrong, but I believe the NWS only uses the US weather model whereas Accuweather and the Weather Channel also use the European weather model (and perhaps others) and base their forecasts on combining model outputs.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Friday January 04 2019, @10:50PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday January 04 2019, @10:50PM (#782276)

          You're still far better off visiting your local news station's site and getting their weather reports rather than a national site like TWC or Accuweather. Even better if you look at the radar which most have on their website, it doesn't take much effort to learn enough to make an accurate forecast of your own, at least for the next few hours. I would avoid all the apps and just visit the website. Oh, and look out the window once in a while. Of course, if one is using a smart phone for all this they have sacrificed privacy anyway...

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Saturday January 05 2019, @03:12AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 05 2019, @03:12AM (#782370) Journal

        It's what I use.

        You can enter in any map coordinates [weather.gov]. The hourly weather forecast graphs [weather.gov] are particularly useful.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:03PM (#782213)

      NOAA's radar site is plenty fine for me.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @07:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @07:04PM (#782183)

    nuff said.

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @07:18PM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 04 2019, @07:18PM (#782191) Journal

    Yet the company, which is owned by IBM,

    Surely this is not the same IBM which assisted Adolph's Germany in collecting data on the Jews?

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 04 2019, @10:30PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Friday January 04 2019, @10:30PM (#782266) Journal

      As Linus Torvalds would say: "No! No siree Bob! Nope!"...while nodding (pummeling?)vigorously.

      My new word of 2019: pummeling.
      ;)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:39PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:39PM (#782268)

      Yes, just like how the Trump Party is really just the Party of Lincoln ("See? We really DO like black people! As well as all the many fine people on both sides.").

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:44AM (7 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:44AM (#782351) Homepage
        You don't think for one minute that Lincoln liked black people, do you? His racism makes Trump look very moderate.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (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]

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

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.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-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.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.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:35AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:35AM (#782350) Homepage
      +1 Beat Me To It
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday January 04 2019, @07:36PM (8 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday January 04 2019, @07:36PM (#782201)

    How shocking! What next? Facebook losing their spotless reputation for transparency and respect of personal privacy?

    What is the world coming to I tell ya...

    • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday January 04 2019, @07:55PM (7 children)

      by BsAtHome (889) on Friday January 04 2019, @07:55PM (#782208)

      Well, yeah, it is absolutely shocking that nobody has read the T&Cs, where you were informed about this in lawyer-clear and opaquely-absolute terms. However, nobody cared to read it and just clicked OK.

      And /now/ you are complaining?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 04 2019, @08:56PM (6 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday January 04 2019, @08:56PM (#782233) Journal

        I'm not willing to waste time reading 20 plus pages of fine print that I know is almost entirely boilerplate bull, not for something trivial like a weather report. Some choice bull:

        1. "You agree not to use our app to break the law." Gosh, if that term wasn't in there, I wouldn't be obliged to obey the law? I suspect the real reason for that one is to fatigue the user, add more bloat to the terms, so they can slip in the real obnoxious crap later.

        2. "You are forbidden from reverse engineering our software." Why, uh, no, I'm not forbidden from doing that, and you can't enforce that on me, if I did reverse engineer it and you somehow learned of those efforts and who was behind it.

        3. "You are totally on your own, and we accept nothing whatsoever in the way of responsibility if our software fails to work properly, or does anything naughty like leak all your personal info." Oh yeah?

        4. "You can't sue us, you have to agree to arbitration." Wonder if that one's ever been tested in court? Moot anyway, in cases in which the value and therefore the potential for damage, is very low.

        5. "You do not own a copy of the software, you are only granted a very, very limited license to use it. No you can't sell it, give it away, or otherwise transfer it to a 3rd party" Yeah, because after 5 years, you think your software won't be pirated to the hilt and remade and improved, and will be more valuable than a long ton of gold?

        So why should anyone read such malarkey? How often do you read the terms?

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Friday January 04 2019, @10:23PM (5 children)

          by BsAtHome (889) on Friday January 04 2019, @10:23PM (#782263)

          You are not willing to read that crap, I fully understand. But if you use the software, then you agree to the terms and are bound by the terms. At least, all those terms that are enforceable.

          The "boilerplate", as you call it, is what defines the rules. Yes, it is pedantic, crap to read and hard to understand. Beware that those many words contain many catches and are not always plain copies. Anyhow, those /are/ the rules, whether you like it or not. You /choose/ to ignore them. Then you should not be surprised by the consequences.

          And yes, I do read the T&Cs. If I do not like them, then I do not use the software or the service. That has kept me far away from all the cloudy crap and data sucking players, pretending to be "social" or "media". Fuck'm. I want to be in control. Therefore, I choose _not_ to use services like that.

          BTW, arbitration has been accepted by the courts in the US. Not all jurisdictions in the world have the same view (just like prohibition to reverse engineering is unenforceable in the EU). YMMV.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:43PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:43PM (#782271)

            At least, all those terms that are enforceable.

            Get off your high horse for a sec and realize that maybe you do read it all, YOU don't even know what parts are enforceable. How the hell do you criticize people for clicking through when it isn't even clear what parts are true and what aren't?

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:00AM (3 children)

              by BsAtHome (889) on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:00AM (#782315)

              That is completely besides the point. There is a difference whether I choose to accept rules, even though I might not understand them, or I reject them even though I might not understand them. Either way, it is a choice I have to make.

              This all is about choice, not about which parts of an agreement are enforceable. Nobody is forcing you to accept any T&Cs. You can decline. If in doubt, always choose the safe side, just like your parents probably have told you.

              If you accept the T&Cs, then you should not complain "Oh my! I did not know... blabla". You got yourself into the mess. That is my point, you make your own choices which have consequences.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:56PM (#782485) Journal

                If you accept the T&Cs,

                "If". It's pretty clear he doesn't accept the T&Cs even while supposedly "accepting" them in a supposedly legal sense.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:43PM (#782563)

                  Ok, if we assume that someone accepted the terms and became their bitch despite griping about it...that user is still a bitch. Your argument is of no substance nor merit.

                  One who reads the EULA or terms and rejects them and further does not agree to them so that the product may be used may henceforth not be called a bitch. That person is worthy of respect, even if all the cool kids are ignorant and get to use the app.

                  Ignorance is bliss, and it also gets you tracked.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:20PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @08:20PM (#782218)

    App were built for one thing, stealing.

    The walled gardens are jails Period

    For all the thief in these places phones should be free. Are you getting it you are paying to be still from!?!

    • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:48AM

      by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:48AM (#782333)

      You're right.

      While IBM is to blame as the current owner of the app, the Weather Channel app was stealing your data long before IBM acquired it.

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday January 04 2019, @08:25PM (1 child)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday January 04 2019, @08:25PM (#782220)

    Sigh.

    It seems like everyone wants you to download some "free" new/weather app crap these days. All of the network TV news programs take every chance they get to tell you how now is the perfect time to download their free crapp to your toy cell phone.

    I always joke how these are "free news/weather/malware" apps.

    I guess normal people see these as a generous service with no catches.

    But it would make no sense for anyone to give away an "app" or the service associated with it truly for free. I'm sure most have in-app targeted advertising and it comes as absolutely no surprise that these actually do collect every tiny little shred of information they can. Or that this information is stored, sold to the highest bidder, and aggregated with other data to further target you.

    To me this is a "no shit, Sherlock!" sort of thing. But the average consumetard out there will never wake up to this, and even insist we all do things the same consumertardastic way they do.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 04 2019, @09:05PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday January 04 2019, @09:05PM (#782237) Journal

      Download? Only weather app I have came with the phone, and the user isn't allowed to uninstall it! Otherwise, I'd rip it out in a heartbeat. But jailbreaking a phone is a total pain in the rear. Using a handy jailbreak app often feels like you're only breaking out of one jail to enter a different jail.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:55PM (#782279)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:46AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:46AM (#782352)

    I'm glad every app possible is stealing as much info as possible on everyone they can. Because it makes my own data mere noise in the vast amount of crap they're getting.

    Of course I'd prefer it if no one collected such data from anyone, for any reason. But that ain't the world we live in, more's the pity. So since they've been siphoning up data and they're going to keep siphoning up data, then (IMO) the only way to fight it is to drown them in so much data that it's mostly all noise.

    It'd be nice if anyone wrote an app that didn't block other apps from stealing data, but force fed the other apps incredibly fake data. "Oh, fifty million people seem to be visiting the Smithsonian Museum at the moment." "Half the population of India suddenly seem to have flown to Panorama Point, Nebraska." "All Android users appear to be randomly and evenly distributed around the globe. Even the oceans." "Every Apple user in Denmark just searched for articles on Discordianism."

    • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Saturday January 05 2019, @09:46AM

      by Spamalope (5233) on Saturday January 05 2019, @09:46AM (#782453) Homepage

      It'd be too easy to filter most of that out.
      I'd like to see one that links random groups of users and swaps the spy data.
      They'd get 100% legit data but coming from randomized sources so it's hopelessly poisoned.
      Filtering that would be like trying to spam block using your legit emails to train the AI.

      It'd be neat to have a web browser plugin that does that with desktop tracking info too.

      They're so intent on hoovering up the most data, so it's easier to throw rocks into the vacuum than it is to stop them from getting anything.

(1)