Hum... ¿seguro que es esto lo que todas queremos que se haga con nuestros datos? ¿Que en vez de captarlos unas los capten otras? ¿Seguro que la única forma de construir una autopista y que luego pasen coches o aeropuertos que tengan aviones es "captar" nuestros datos?
Es decir, el organismo captará información por sus propios medios y sensores pero también los pedirá a compañías que operan en el entorno urbano (telefónicas, energéticas y otras), los analizará y empleará para hacer con mejor tino sus políticas y los podrá a disposición de la ciudadanía, la universidad o quien los requiera. http://www.eldiario.es/desde-mi-bici/datos-petroleo-XXI-ciudades-yacimientos_6_740236001.html
Un buen artículo del CEO de #duckduckgo en un medio de bastante difusión !privacidad !privacy (...) As a result, these two companies have amassed huge data profiles on each person, which can include your interests, purchases, search, browsing and location history, and much more. They then make your sensitive data profile available for invasive targeted advertising that can follow you around the Internet.
(...) Google and Facebook also use your data as input for increasingly sophisticated AI algorithms that put you in a filter bubble — an alternate digital universe that controls what you see in their products, based on what their algorithms think you are most likely to click on.
The director of a British human rights group says he is facing a possible prison sentence for refusing to disclose passwords for his phone and laptop when he was stopped and questioned by police at Heathrow Airport last year. https://quitter.is/url/938229 !privacy
1. WhatsApp has a backdoor that can be used to decrypt your "end-to-end encrypted" texts. 2. People discover said backdoor (I guess through poking around or reverse engineering, since it's proprietary and code inspection isn't possible) and warn WhatsApp about it. 3. WhatsApp acknowledges existence of backdoor, says it's intentional ("it's not a bug, that's our design!") and they won't bother fixing it. 4. Millions of people continue using communications that can be actively intercepted, because they were told that some "encryption" thing they know nothing about would protect them.
I'm used to !privacy. I'm used to evading tracking online. If there are data I want to provide to someone, I'm used to explicitly choosing to provide it, or choosing not to prevent certain data from being collected.
I clicked on a link in an e-mail today on my mobile device (only very select, unimportant messages are sent to that device) having forgotten to first look at the link to see if it included a tracking identifier. It did. I felt betrayed and upset. I still do half a day later. And all they learned was that I read the e-mail and clicked on that particular link.
This is such a basic tracking mechanism that is so mundane compared to what users unknowingly go through every day. If average users knew what I did, would they even care? I get upset over deanonymization for a e-mail and link. Would they get upset over their entire lives being tracked, analyzed, and sold?
Maybe. And shame on you, Intercept---you should know better. Presumably it's their e-mail service (MailChimp). I'll be letting them know. That makes it worse, actually, since now MailChimp has gathered a statistic on me, and every other Intercept newsletter subscriber. My e-mail address was more than enough for them to know about (I think it's obvious from my linking of articles that I read The Intercept).
If you care about your users, don't use any tracking features provided by your email campaign service, and make sure they don't include any behind your back. If they do, don't use them.