Discussion in 'privacy general' started by CloneRanger, Sep 30, 2011.
It's the real price they expect you to pay for your cheap tablet. We might have known to expect such as this. Thanks for posting
This is a problem with mobile devices. They can be handy, even essential for some, but they're far more difficult to secure and prevent unnecessary tracking.
So that's the reason for the low price. They make money out of your information. Good thing I have the old one, which isn't using that browser, at least for now.
Important to note, in the last paragraph of the article:
"Users who are seriously worried about the power of Amazon's cloud to track, watch and deliver advertising can simply turn the split-browser function off - although the company warns that this will slow things down."
To write a big deal like that and only mention that you can turn this off in the last paragraph is terrible journalism.
Another story on this from MSNBC:
"Fortunately, Wisniewski notes, Amazon will enable Fire tablet owners to use Silk without routing traffic through the cloud. Connection speeds will be slower, but Wisniewski said it's a sacrifice well worth making."
I've seen enough terrible journalism already . Thanks for clearing that up.
U.S. Congress Targets Amazon's Silk Browser
And the big issue is whether the Silk browser on the Kindle Fire should be routed through Amazon's servers by default - or the reverse. The old Opt-In/Opt-Out argument.
Personally, I think the U.S. government has better things to worry about.
"EFF Gets Straight Privacy Answers from Amazon About New "Silk" Tablet Browser" : https://www.eff.org/2011/october/amazon-fire’s-new-browser-puts-spotlight-privacy-trade-offs
"Amazon to Congress: No, Silk won't invade people's privacy" : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...congress-silk-wont-invade-peoples-privacy.ars
Separate names with a comma.