101–110 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for that! I really didn't know they had a response to these claims. However it's not hard to see this can just be a PR shield anyway.
Then they can't win. An accusation has been made, they've refuted the claims with a response, response is dismissed as a PR shield. What are they going to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for that! I really didn't know they had a response to these claims. However it's not hard to see this can just be a PR shield anyway.
For this not to be a PR shield (i.e. for Israel to really be able to read protonmail) the link would have to be an outright lie, or protonmail would have to have shared key data. Heck, even if somehow radware (the BGP-based DDoS proxy they use) had access to protonmails private key or had minted their own SSL cert for protonmail, you'd still be protected by PGP. For outgoing mail, they don't use radware so even if yo…
You wouldn't, PGP is verified by code that can be MITM'd if the traffic is spoofed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... I'll rag on Google's poor support as much as the next guy, but only when it's warranted. ProtonMail and anyone else that gets delisted / what-have-you is not Google's client and shouldn't expect first-class support for things like this.
This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that when a search engine has the overwhelming majority of the online search market, freedom of information has a strict dependence on the QoS of that engine. Since people (at least in Europe) have a legal right to freedom of information, if Google is not providing s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... It should be, though. It's not 1776. A website like Google is more than a company, it's a public service with immense power of manipulation and influence over countless industries. The law shouldn't be written like we live in the stone age.
So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Because that seems to be what you're gunning for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that when a search engine has the overwhelming majority of the online search market, freedom of information has a strict dependence on the QoS of that engine. Since people (at least in Europe) have a legal right to freedom of information, if Google is not providing s…
Interesting. The freedom of information concept seems in direct opposition to the right to be forgotten countries like Germany require.
It's not really a big deal that different sets of laws conflict with one another. It's fairly common in fact. For instance Freedom of Speech vs Defamation laws.
Good legislation like good code, accounts for these corner cases. Where it doesn't you have the lawyers and the courts to work it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identifying a problem caused by a monopoly is not the same as having to provide a solution for it. Some sort of regulation. No-one said they had to do it free.
So it would be ok with you if Google said "we exclude any search results we want, you can pay for Google premium to have uncensored results"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company gets a big enough marketshare it's not that simple. If Google would have de-listed Protonmail just because "they could" that would be a problem (legal wise) in the EU. Since they also specifically target EU countries (google.nl) they also can't simply say they don't have to comply because they are based in the US.
If this is an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction then it's an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction, and governments have ways to address that. If Google has a monopoly on search then break up their monopoly on search in your country. BUT. Saying that Google needs to bend over backwards to accommodate every possible edge case of EU human rights (of which there are far too many that are overly broad) as…
If anything, I'd propose the counter-argument that startups can more nimbly respond to these edge-cases, whereas the cost of change for a large hulking conglomerate is where the problems lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to nationalize Google before nationalizing the internet itself? I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
I think he means globalize rather than nationalize ... I guess someone's been reading Picketty ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concrete examples?
Christina Hoff Sommers, Dave Rubin, Prager University, all of their content is delisted and demonetized on Youtube. Non of them is illegal content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he means globalize rather than nationalize ... I guess someone's been reading Picketty ..
I never have, but if this is something he considers a good idea I think I'm going to have to just to understand what idiotic crap to expect in the next few decades