0
Unauthorised data collection... so, how is OnePlus going to conform to UK law?

  1. Peter_Galbavy
    Cupcake Oct 12, 2017

    Peter_Galbavy , Oct 12, 2017 :
    It appears from press reports,and OnePlus confirming this in a response, that they collect personally identifiable information without authorisation and without the ability to disable this.

    From http://www.techradar.com/news/repor...ing-identifiable-user-data-without-permission

    How is OnePlus going to fix this for UK/EU users before the law comes down on them do you think?
     

    #1
  2. Lancelot_69
    Lollipop Oct 12, 2017


    #2
    Praty_28 likes this.
  3. Peter_Galbavy
    Cupcake Oct 12, 2017

    Peter_Galbavy , Oct 12, 2017 :
    Probably, but not seen any busy threads in the first couple of pages and search returns random garbage.
     

    #3
    Praty_28 likes this.
  4. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 13, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 13, 2017 :
    Which is suspicious in itself!
     

    #4
  5. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 13, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 13, 2017 :
    How idiotic is your post, seeing that there was indeed a huge thread and there is now one by @Carl himself, the co-founder of the company?
     

    #5
    sfomin and eye842 like this.
  6. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 13, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 13, 2017 :
    Have you ever heard the phrase 'don't shoot the messenger'?
    Most non-idiots and non-ignorant people have. And most of those same smart people adhere to it.

    ...your gun is smoking.
     

    #6
    tictaktoe333 likes this.
  7. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 13, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 13, 2017 :
    You were the one saying it was "suspicious". No one else called it suspicious but you, so I hardly see how that expression would be applicable.
     

    #7
    sfomin likes this.
  8. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 17, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 17, 2017 :
    Because what I said was a comment regarding what that person had seen on the forums. And what they had seen was indeed, incredibly suspicious. I was the messenger of a fact. An interesting fact. You didn't like that fact, and so decided to call me an idiot because you didn't like it. You shot the messenger. And in doing so showed yourself to be what you're calling me.
    You didn't like what was being said for some reason, even though it was absolutely true, and decided to try and insult me.

    What that person had suggested was that possibly the mods of this forum had/were trying to silence or remove comments on this negative issue. Whether that's actually what was/is happening before/since Carl's post is irrelevant.
     

    #8
  9. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 17, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 17, 2017 :
    How is something that is based on a false fact "absolutely true"?
     

    #9
  10. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 20, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 20, 2017 :
    Because you're obviously, still, completely not understanding what we're talking about here.
    Something can be absolutely true, even if something it's connected to is possibly true, possibly not.

    Here's an example:
    I state that Donald Trump was wearing a red tie when he made a speech. You tell me i'm an idiot for believing that he was wearing a red tie, because you think some of the things in his speech were based on conspiracies not facts.
    What he said was not in question. You called me an idiot for saying a fact, that he was wearing a red tie. Just because you didn't like the content of the speech and in your head, somehow the content and him wearing a red tie are are the same thing.

    Back to the issue at hand:
    I suggested what that person saw would be highly suspicious. That's the fact, and it's still true, and you still owe me an apology for calling me an idiot for stating that fact. Whether what that person suggested is absolutely true or not, is a completely separate matter. Yet in your head, they are the same thing.
     

    #10
  11. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 20, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 20, 2017 :
    Your example makes no sense whatsoever.

    Using your example:

    You state that Donald Trump was wearing a red tie when he made a speech. I tell it's idiotic to believe he was wearing a red tie, when he actually was using a blue tie.

    Read the thread again .

    When @Peter_Galbavy said "Probably, but not seen any busy threads in the first couple of pages and search returns random garbage." there was a huge active thread with 44 pages and dozens of other smaller threads that were either closed for being redudant or merged to the active topic. When you said that it "suspicious" not only that thread existed but there was an actual official announcement now with 28 pages.

    So again, how can it be "suspicious that there were no threads about " if not only there was a massive non-official thread but also a public statement by the company's co-founder?
     

    #11
  12. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 20, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 20, 2017 :
    I'm glad we finally agree on something -that my example doesn't make sense. That's entirely the point of it - because my example is showing your logic. It doesn't make sense. You can't change the parameters of my example to make it fit your point. He was wearing a red tie. And you're calling me an idiot because of it, when the colour of his tie has nothing to do with what he is saying. It is what he is saying that you have an issue with, yet in your head you still can't separate the two things.
     

    #12
  13. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 20, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 20, 2017 :
    Ok, so you're ignoring the fact that the premise you based yourself off was entirely false. You're ignoring the fact that instead of basing yourself in readily available facts (both threads I linked you to are readily available, as are all the other small ones) you prefer to assume that there is something suspicious just because you feel like it, even though there's a freaking official statement on the matter.

    Now I get why you chose Trump as your example.
     

    #13
  14. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 20, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 20, 2017 :
    And again, you STILL show yourself completely incapable of identifying the difference between a comment on what someone said, and the thing that was said. Until you learn how to disassociate two things which are connected but completely separate, this discussion is pointless. It's like trying to explain to someone that the sky is blue when they're convinced it's black...because they won't open their eyes.
     

    #14
  15. dsmonteiro
    Community Consultant Community Expert Oct 20, 2017

    dsmonteiro , Oct 20, 2017 :
    No, I'm not. I'm however capable of not shielding myself behind someone else's wrong information. You could've seen he was wrong as easily as I saw. You just needed to want to, rather than just going through the easy route and calling it suspicious.
     

    #15
  16. f1982
    Ice Cream Sandwich Oct 20, 2017

    f1982 , Oct 20, 2017 :
    Haha aaaaaand STILL (!!) you are trying to keep referring back to whether what someone else said, not what I said, was true.
    I've had enough trying to teach you how logic works, because you're obviously way off getting it. Have a nice day.
     

    #16