They are expensive to run. Why would someone pay the cost and offer it for you to use for free? When it appears free it’s most likely not free.
The word privacy based in your post probably explains it.
shadycomposer
joined 1 year ago
let’s say you use weeds and weeds is legal where you are, but it’s illegal to drive after using weeds.
Now you’re arrested for DUI. Next day you make to the headline: “Man arrested for using weeds”. Is it the fact? Yes. Do you think it’s all the necessary facts?
Your opinion is based on the assumption that everyone should be allowed to use VPN to do anything. I may agree with you, but it doesn’t change how bad the article is.
I’m not sure if I understand your point.
If you say their law sucks, their LE agency sucks, they freely interpret their laws in prosecution, etc. , I completely agree with you. But if you’re trying to say using vpn to browse internet in China can risk a big fine, which is what the title of the article is saying, I don’t think it’s accurate. News agency should state the facts, not their ill formed opinions.
“Man’s income of 1m was confiscated due to using VPN for work’ would be accurate.
‘Man is fined 1m for using VPN’ is not.
There’s no evidence (yet) that someone will be fined this much by simply using vpn in China to browse otherwise banned sites.
Intentionally misleading by summarizing partial facts is simply evil. Not sure if anyone may be satisfied with this approach, but even if some do, I’m willing to bet they will become unsatisfied if missing part of the facts is actually what they care about.
Agree. But practically they may claim using such data to improve their systems. This is a valid LI justification. But still it provides no benefits to users to whom those data are collected from, while at the same time increases their risks (such as mishandling of their data - which is common since it’s very difficult to handle data 100% correctly).
Legitimate interest is their interest, not yours.
Isn’t it obvious? I bet every other AI companies do the same. Honestly I think personalized models, for ads, tracking or whatever other purposes, are much worse than this but people have been happily living with it for a long time.
If you don’t want your data to be used, don’t put it on internet.
there will be far more losers who will happily hand over their data in exchange of free service
Honestly I'm not sure if I fully understand their points:
-
"Entire message data is not always passed..." - so sometimes it works, while sometimes doesn't? At a glance MailKit seems to have the necessary hooks (MEMessageSecurityHandler) though i have not used it myself so can't say if it works as expected or not.
-
When they say they'll release a version with 14.1 (or 14.0.1), do they have confirmation from Apple that the said blockers will be resolved in that release? If they need more time to implement this it's fair, but the wording of the 'key points' sounds like there are blockers out of their control, then how could they commit a release date without Apple's commitment?
When you chose to use their free service, you already sold your soul to devil.