XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: mariasophia@comprehension.com   
      
   Carlos E. R. wrote:   
   >> Well, what would the advantage of mandating worse & more-expensive gas be?   
   >   
   > I don't remember. Having a single hose, for instance, saves money.   
      
   Hi Carlos,   
      
   As you can see from my photo, there is only one hose even when they have   
   multiple grades of gasoline at the pump (where Costco has only 2 grades).   
       
      
   As you know, I live in the boonies above Silicon Valley where they don't   
   want us to live, so we have 40-acre zoning to keep the houses far apart.   
      
   Being far from the nearest gasoline station, and loving the best gas I can   
   get for the least price, I built my own gas station at home, which I've   
   discussed at length with OSHA, CARB, the CHP, the Fire Marshall & zoning   
   folks so as to be safe in transport, storage & refueling at home.   
      
   With respect to hoses, California law requires that all *retail* gas   
   stations use CARB-certified Phase II vapor recovery systems when   
   transferring gasoline from the station's storage tank into a vehicle.   
   These systems must be tested and certified by the California Air Resources   
   Board (CARB) to meet strict engineering and emissions standards.   
      
   This is why retail California gas-hose nozzles will likely have...   
   a. A rubber boot or bellows   
   b. A vapor-return pathway   
   c. Automatic shutoff mechanisms tuned to vapor pressure   
      
   While these are not required for my home gasoline refueling station, I do   
   have an electrical automatic shutoff gas pump which meets all standards.   
      
   But to your point, they're not expensive (although I get most of my stuff   
   nowadays free from Amazon Vine anyway) and you still need only one nozzle   
   for as many grades of (non-leaded) gasoline that the gas pump can serve.   
      
   >>> Uploads to my account space. This is fine and I want it. Does not   
   >>> share it.   
   >>   
   >> How do you know that Google will never be hacked?   
   >   
   > Does not count.   
      
   Hmmm... I listed in a prior post something like a dozen outfits that grab   
   (or can grab) your contacts. How do you know they'll all never be hacked?   
      
   Rest assured I am nothing like the next million people you know, in that I   
   think extremely deeply about what I'm doing when I use a mobile device with   
   Windows, in that I back up my devices completely privately in all respects.   
      
   People who think "I'm not sharing it, I'm just storing it in my cloud,"   
   don't ever seem to be able to comprehend that cloud storage is inherently   
   shared with a third party, and therefore carries risks we cannot control.   
      
   Hence, I'm trying to articulate something that is obvious to me but which   
   is apparently subtle to the next million people but it's still important.   
      
   Choosing to keep contacts only on our devices (e.g., with Dopen Contacts +   
   local vCard storage on Android) is not paranoia, but a very respectful and   
   intelligent form of protecting other people's data from 3rd-party access.   
      
   >> The behavior is discourteous   
   >> I could use the word "uncaring" though if that sounds better to everyone?   
   >   
   > I disagree. I'm not sharing data, I'm just storing it in my cloud. And   
   > keeping it private.   
      
   If you really think handing the personal data of everyone around you to   
   just about anywhere that asks for it is not being discourteous, then we   
   really can't discuss this further as to me, that's a basic starting point.   
      
      
   >> Just let me know which word you like best for the argument, which is about   
   >> basic human decency for protecting other people's private information.   
   >   
   > No, because I do not accept your point of it being rude. I am protecting   
   > other people's private information.   
      
   Third-party involvement changes the ethics of handling other people's data.   
   You can't protect it once you give it to a 3rd party. Nobody can.   
      
   Which is people are likely doing if it's stored in the Android contacts db.   
      
   >> How do you know no company whom you interacted with won't be attacked?   
   >   
   > Doesn't count.   
   >   
   > How do you know that a bad person with not pick my house lock, enter,   
   > and steal my hard disks? Or a pickpocket steal my phone while open and   
   > running?   
      
   It's about respect.   
   And consent.   
      
   When I store my contacts locally on Android (e.g., in the DOcontacts app or   
   in a Vcard file on Windows), I'm being respectful. Those phone numbers and   
   email addresses belong to other people, not me. If I upload them to a cloud   
   service, I'm giving a third party access to other people's personal data   
   without their consent. I can't guarantee that company won't be hacked,   
   sold, subpoenaed, or change its policies. Keeping contacts on my devices   
   avoids involving anyone else in issues with third-party privacy flaws.   
      
   Of which I already showed you in another post, there are quite a few.   
   How do you know there will never again be another flaw exploited?   
      
   It's about respect & consent for other people's private information.   
   --   
   Uploading someone else's personal information without their knowledge or   
   consent is inherently discourteous regardless of the uploader's intentions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)