←back to thread

Everyone knows your location: tracking myself down through in-app ads

(timsh.org)
1957 points apokryptein | 10 comments | 02 Feb 25 17:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | source | bottom
Show context
qingcharles ◴[02 Feb 25 20:40 UTC] No.42911578[source]▶
One big privacy issue is that there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold, regardless of what you do.

As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd.

And I buy this stuff. Every time I need customer service and I'm getting stonewalled I just go onto a marketplace, find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)

replies(33): >>42911665 #>>42911679 #>>42911714 #>>42911768 #>>42911810 #>>42911853 #>>42911874 #>>42912408 #>>42912465 #>>42912852 #>>42912979 #>>42913150 #>>42913418 #>>42913708 #>>42913974 #>>42914004 #>>42914803 #>>42914807 #>>42915963 #>>42916052 #>>42916619 #>>42916711 #>>42916764 #>>42917374 #>>42918405 #>>42918914 #>>42918920 #>>42920277 #>>42920369 #>>42920873 #>>42920949 #>>42940036 #>>42967302 #
Aurornis ◴[03 Feb 25 00:28 UTC] No.42913418[source]▶
> (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)

When I was at a medium-sized consumer-facing company whose name you’d recognize if you’re in the tech space (intentionally vague) we had some customers try this. They’d find product managers or directors on LinkedIn then start trying to contact them with phone numbers found on the internet, personal email addresses, or even doing things like finding photos their family members posted and complaining the comments.

We had to start warning them not to do it again, then following up with more drastic actions on the second violation. I remember several cases where we had to get corporate counsel involved right away and there was talk of getting law enforcement involved because some people thought implied threats would get them what they wanted.

So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.

replies(5): >>42914268 #>>42914441 #>>42918259 #>>42921838 #>>43002666 #
1. maeil ◴[03 Feb 25 03:01 UTC] No.42914441[source]▶
> So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.

Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.

Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.

This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.

I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.

replies(2): >>42914587 #>>42915775 #
2. ajcp ◴[03 Feb 25 03:26 UTC] No.42914587[source]▶
> but that's not generalizable.

You only referenced two companies...

replies(2): >>42915022 #>>42915239 #
3. maeil ◴[03 Feb 25 04:33 UTC] No.42915022[source]▶
Two companies that are so gigantic they combine to a great percentage of number of "company interactions" the average Westerner has on a daily basis.

Anyway, I don't think it contradicts my point? Your company exist, mom and pops exist and there's a whole spectrum between them, so it's not generalizable.

4. otteromkram ◴[03 Feb 25 05:21 UTC] No.42915239[source]▶
EBay, Amazon, Walmart, CVS, etc.

Name a major company, then try to contact customer service and interact with an actual human.

Even if they do have a contact phone number, good luck navigating the mazes of voice prompts.

Amazon isn't actually so bad about this, but I couldn't tell you if their CSR chat bot is an actual person or mid-level AI by now.

replies(3): >>42915544 #>>42923217 #>>42925919 #
5. bruce511 ◴[03 Feb 25 06:30 UTC] No.42915544{3}[source]▶
My only connection to Amazon support has been for AWS.

Perhaps though this should be an example of good customer service where talking to a human is easy, and not lumped in with the likes of Google where its impossible.

Perhaps your experience with the online shop is different, but frankly they're in my "good" column, not my "bad" column.

replies(2): >>42916165 #>>42920822 #
6. rixed ◴[03 Feb 25 07:17 UTC] No.42915775[source]▶
Regarding the evolution of the law:

Long ago when Google tried to launch its very first phone somewhere in Europe I can distinctly remember that it was initially not allowed to because of some regulation that mandated a company selling telephones to have a customer service.

Can't remember if they eventually found a loophole or if the regulations were changed.

7. cauefcr ◴[03 Feb 25 08:36 UTC] No.42916165{4}[source]▶
AWS was, indeed, very easy to reach when i did an oopsie and spent over my desired limit.
8. tclancy ◴[03 Feb 25 17:50 UTC] No.42920822{4}[source]▶
This is not like for like: AWS assigns reps because the dollar amounts are significant compared to your monthly cell phone bill or a purchase at Amazon. It's not surprising that buying a car gets you better customer service than renting one.
9. KennyBlanken ◴[03 Feb 25 21:13 UTC] No.42923217{3}[source]▶
The challenge isn't getting customer service. It's getting someone who isn't reading from a decision tree that conveniently doesn't include any paths where the corporation has fucked up.
10. pridkett ◴[04 Feb 25 01:00 UTC] No.42925919{3}[source]▶
For most situations, Walmart and CVS have fine customer service compared to most. You just need to show up in person. Fortunately, their business model might make that a little annoying, but not even difficult for most.