$7 per 1000 calls
I was considering making an app to create hyperlapse from a GPX file to visualise a route. But mapping 100km would cost $14 with a shot every 50m.
Even if I could justify this cost for a very specific trip, there is no way on earth I could make a business out of that.
Why is it so expensive?
I think Google is leaving a ton of money on the table.
I thought the problem with Vastaamo was that the CEO was in charge of the mysql database and he was basically a hobbyist that didn't care much for security. (yeah zero proper sources for that... my level of Finnish is terrible)
And then Murphy's law kicked it. A vilain nabs the data for free and does his thing.
Liability for the whole software industry needs to be re-thought.
The problem with jailing CEOs is that even if it would work the first couple of times the other possible effect would be that people would do even more to brush their fuckups under the carpet...
The EU has got this right I think: massive fines in case of a breach to the point that the CEOs are starting to pay attention. That certainly isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction.
Healthcare is particularly vulnerable and I'm always surprised that people in HC seem to think that they aren't a target. This is a huge mistake imo, there is massive blackmail potential in healthcare data.
The problem with the classic "burn the CEO" knee-jerk is that it only leads to security theater.
CEO hires CISO. CISO makes a big splash, and spends a ton of time getting the business certified in various ways, to prove to CEO stuff is being done.
In reality, security remains atrocious at the tactical level, and the company hemorrhages security talent because no one wants to work for clueless assholes.
Ultimately, eventually, breach still happens, CISO falls on their sword, but is fine because they and CEO always knew this is what they were really being hired to do and compensation was engineered around that expectation.
--
What actually works is a gentle, gradual pressure to move to a better security posture (e.g. vaulted credentials, separate security domains, etc.), implemented over time as opportunity allows, preventing new vulnerabilities from being introduced by targeting development processes, and financially incentivizing developers throughout the company to report issues when they find them.
If someone left a car door open with the car full of confidential documents and someone stole them, the person who left the door open would definitely be held responsible.
Not so much lately. There are a ton of success stories in the making. I was at Smartly and we didn't settle for 10M.
Then you have the likes of Supermetrics, Yousician, Aiven, Eficode, Oura, Iceye, Varjo, Wolt, Supercell, Rovio, NextGame, Enfuce, Ultimate, Swappie, Singa, Sievo, Framery and many more...
Happy to debunk this in whichever way you want! I definitely don't work for Facebook. Also I have been consuming HN content for years without contributing. There has to be a first day...
I do work closely with Facebook (For a Facebook Marketing Partner called Smartly.io) and we collaborate closely on certain aspects.
I think I have a very deep understanding of what Facebook is capable of and that's the reason why I want to debunk this.
Also, I am really tired of hearing the questionable reports.
I don't agree with your proposed way of studying this. You're trying to study a symptom and then conclude on the cause of the symptom. That makes no sense. If you want to prove that Facebook is listening, then prove that Facebook is listening. And don't try to prove that Facebook is listening and then targeting you with ads based on what you said. There are way too many levels of indirections that can trigger false positive for a vast number of reasons you don't control at all.
What you are trying to do is replicate in large-scale displays of anecdotes but with a slightly more controlled environment.
That won't prove anything since it will just be anecdotes and will again not sustain rational explanation by experts of Facebook ads mechanisms.
Without getting into the ads delivery part and the anecdotes, how would you prove that Facebook is listening?
How would you prove that there is a set of information taken from your speech or your audible environment transferred to Facebook.
I think you didn't read my proposed methodology carefully.
Box Researcher | Owner of phone (outside room)
[ ]~ x | o
The researchers speaks about some subjects, but not others. The ~ represents that in some cases the researcher's conversations are being fed into the box, and in others they are not. The box is otherwise soundproof, and inside is the phone being tested.
The test group is that the researchers' voices are being fed into the box. The control group is that researchers voices are NOT being fed into the box.
It is important in order to maintain double-blind environment that the researchers not hear whether they are being amplified into the box.
Of course, I just made this up. (I imagine the subjective 1-5 scores being whether the given subject reports seeing such an advertisement, from 0 definitely not to 5 definitely yes.) I even made subject 3 unsure about topics 1 and 3 to mimic that humans are fallible. Likewise subject 2 does not really report any advertisements. (This is likely in the real world - for example subject 2 could be explicitly excluded by advertisers for some reason.)
The attached is the kind of graphs that I would expect based on dozens of scientifically-minded people trying them.
If these are the two graphs that we got, and if the test and control groups were truly randomized, what other explanation could you offer?
Of course, my proposed experiment is orders of magnitude more scientific than what people are doing with their n=1, unblinded personal experiments. But theirs has some validity also.
