HtheB | # 1291 | 2019-05-17, 17:01 | Report

A short video of a late build of the Pro 1:

<link removed>
Edit:
Seems like the video contained personal information. Video removed

---

Last edited by HtheB; 2019-05-17 at 17:48.

kinggo | # 1292 | 2019-05-17, 17:24 | Report

HtheB | # 1293 | 2019-05-17, 17:32 | Report

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_4ca8jthAs

nthn | # 1294 | 2019-05-17, 17:44 | Report

Absolutely, there's a huge difference between targeted surveillance and mass surveillance. In fact, all evidence seems to point in the direction of mass surveillance being much worse at actually catching the 'bad guys'. There's so much data that at some point anything and anyone can reasonably be considered suspect, so whoever's pulling the strings can point out anyone as the bad guy, and hide the real culprits.

gtmaster303 | # 1295 | 2019-05-17, 23:03 | Report

Just saw the post from Mr. Mobile
you were in NYC and didn't tell anyone??

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxicenVg...on_share_sheet

xman | # 1296 | 2019-05-17, 23:25 | Report

Yeah I know right. I mention it earlier in the thread. But guess we have to wait.

x

chenliangchen | # 1297 | 2019-05-17, 23:31 | Report

I didn't go to NYC. But well found.

Kabouik | # 1298 | 2019-05-18, 23:59 | Report

While I agree to some extent that some surveillance may have some collective benefits in very specific and legitimate cases, one has to stress that it all depends on who is in charge of the surveillance, what the data is collected for, and when the data is analyzed. If a multinational private company pulls the strings, or when the data is collected to increase their revenue, or even when the data is analyzed a priori regardless of any criminal issue to investigate (which would not solve this one crime, but greatly discourage others crimes), that surely leaves some concern.

Also, where to draw the line between privacy and public safety will of course vary a lot among people, but a "certain use of location servers to know where users are" is in my opinion already way beyond the line. Especially when location history also gives knowledge of where they were before, what are their habits, and when did they change them. People whose location might be of interest to the authorities* should be tracked by other (targeted) means instead of thanks to massive surveillance. Rough location thanks to GSM antennas is one thing, so far not really analyzed for no reason in my country, but GPS tracking with Google Services is a plague.

* I am not talking about marketing reasons for knowing people's location because I do not think they should be deemed acceptable.

---

Last edited by Kabouik; 2019-05-19 at 22:46.

xman | # 1299 | 2019-05-19, 06:32 | Report

The teasing is very unfair, so close yet so far.





x

pichlo | # 1300 | 2019-05-20, 07:11 | Report

You like my stories, do you?

So here's another one:

Yesterday I was driving my kids to a birthday party. The address was Church Street in a village nearby. I was extremely busy all weekend and did not have time to look up the address beforehand but I thought, no problem, I can just type the address in Pure Maps before we leave.

But then two things happened: Pure Maps could not find the postcode and my phone could not find my current location.

So I had a radical idea: go low-tech. I know where the village is, surely we can find Church Street and in the worst case, ask someone. And guess what? It worked! We found it. Very quickly. Without technology.

The same for eating places. I have never ever used any Google services for that. I just look around or ask someone. You know, like people used to do.

---

Last edited by pichlo; 2019-05-20 at 09:36. Reason: A typo: s/though/thought