This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.
Good outcome.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.
For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.
I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.
There’s a hyperlink in OP comment (this one) that has the study linked through a download button.
(Apologies for the domain, couldn’t find another direct link)
Pacified by $$$ signs. Counter culture doesn’t pay for Bezos next yacht.
I agree. Ability for a third party phone text to wipe my phone? No thanks
Way to shoot the messenger there. Or are you also taking that pitchfork after Jassy?
I knew a girl who once worked on a supposedly clandestine “special ops” tv show. She messaged me halfway through shooting explaining how disillusioned she was with the whole affair. I asked if, that notwithstanding, whether she had a lovely time in Costa Rica … she was horrified that I knew her location as all public releases of the tv show had them being “special ops” in Africa somewhere.
As you pointed out, Facebook Messenger let that cat out of the bag.
please refer to my response