441–450 of 457 posts
You could also ask your "fans" to send you their cached copies. Or you could search your local browser history. Or you could hire forensic analysists to examine any drives you may have had the data on.
You could also pay lots of fees and bloat up the bitcoin blockchain with it, if you don't want to lose it again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it your opinion that a reasonable interpretation of 6409 is that a submission agent may falsify the sender of an email? Or create false associations between personal names and email addresses?
No RFC rule prevents that, and as far as I know no RFCs even try to define what constitutes a true or false association between a personal name and an email address. But RFC 6409 gives site policy unrestricted permission to allow or deny that. (Well, almost unrestricted. The results have to be syntactically valid.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except neither of those things is "free".
All three need to pay the bills, but none of them charges for most of the services offered, so I'd say they are similarly free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Directly resulting in their harm" is an unenforceable standard, unless you are referring to hitting someone with a printed copy, which I suspect you are not.
An example of direct harm, would be an totally imaginary article that aims to humiliate or defame someone. It's not true; it's not real, but its directly aimed at destroying a persons reputation anyways. This is something that current day harassment laws (and in some countries slander laws) already cover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your house should be safe, secure, a place to store all your valuables, yet it's understood it could be robbed, destroyed by nature, or burn down by accident. You're responsible for making backups or taking out whatever insurance you think is reasonable for your data.
There is a difference between deliberate vs accidental deletion. This was not a random act. Thus is like the fire department coming and burning down your house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would also explain why he wouldn't have local back-ups, to avoid prosecution. Though this may be something of a case of, "Innocent until algorithms say otherwise."
Considering how few people actually take backups, I'm willing to assume laziness. You wouldn't believe how many people I know who say things like, "Yeah I'd lose my entire PhD project if this laptop died, because I haven't taken a backup in X years" (and proceed to continue not backing up their work)
Sure it's not a bullet-proof system, but maybe as they experience the feeling of security, they'll get a taste for implementing something more comprehensive. Lots of low-hanging fruit, too :) But this is already a hundred times better than what they (don't) have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were fre…
> It's true that no obligation is created under our > current legal structure, but I think the statement > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if > people took the accountability and persona…
https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout
You can download all your google data from there. I wish all cloud services provided such a feature.
This just underscores the need for a government to defend our rights. Corporations can't be relied on to do it for us.
On top of that, this person chose not to take the simple step of using Google Takeout to back up the years of data that he couldn't afford to lose. If my business or mental health depended on that data, I'd be doing that every couple of weeks at least.
I do think it would be nice if Google would, when they remove an account, give you a couple of days to go to Takeout and download the data.
Just deleting it with no warning seems very rude indeed, especially when you consider the amount of advertising revenue they generate from serving people's data.
Google should also make less claims about, "A safe place to store your data"!, if they continue to remove people's data without warning or recourse.
Reminds me of what happened to my old Youtube account. One day it was just taken down - no warnings, no chance to back anything up (I had a backup on my home computer, but that hard drive was reformatted while I was in college). Contacted Google, and never got a response. Lost some videos I made as a kid that I would love to see again. Aside from the obvious "back up your stuff" mantra, this points to a couple things…
Re: Point 2, I agree completely, it seems way too draconian to just delete immediately with no warning. With the size of google, there's always going to be the chance that an account is removed by mistake. At least give people a couple of day's chance to get their data before it is removed, if only as a goodwill gesture of thanks to the millions of people providing free data for Google to serve and make advertising revenue from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not implying Google does it because they suffer from autism, Yes you are. Here's what you said: > Given that Google's customer support has autistic tendencies to put it mildly
Do I really have to explain figures of speech to you? Beyond that, tendency is defined as: an inclination towards a particular characteristic or type of behaviour More importantly, it does not mean "it (Google) is that (Autistic)" If I had said "Google is literally autistic" I would agree with you.