I don't care. Usually URLs are long and don't appear in their entirety. They are also links, so it's hard (or almost impossible) to copy them using a computer and impossible to copy them using a mobile.
>People are annoyed that footage from their home was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts. People are annoyed that footage from their family trick-or-treat session was used, without their permission or any payment to them, by Ring for adverts.
They should have read the terms of service. Really I'm tired of this argument. "X service should not exist because nobody reads the terms of service"? What about the people who read them? Why should they be deprived of using this service?
>People are annoyed that millions of unregistered surveillance cameras are being installed with few protections or oversight. They're realising that creating a panopticon might also need to include some protection for how the data is used.
People should be able to put whatever they want in their lawns.
Anyway I'm sceptical about this being actual footage from Ring; I'd say they recorded it with actors.
I think it's a great and funny publicity stunt, I don't know what exactly I should be mad about? Or the "won't someone think of the children" argument doesn't work both ways?
You don't need javascript to show some paragraphs of text with hyperlinks. You don't even need css. If that does not work, this is not a case of poor design, this is simply absolute crap.
Unless you're arguing that Facebook-owned channels are more prone to security bugs, I don't see how this conversation is useful. Let's not forget that whatsapp is end-to-end encrypted by default; they literally brought end-to-end encryption to the masses.
It's something similar to north/south Italy: they are tired of sharing their monies with the poorer regions of Spain, which they regard as lazy and stupid.