Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, lets look in context. In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal, sponsored by state. Should we talk about anti-gay laws? One day it is fine, second day you can get prisoned. No one should keep such records as society is changing and not always to best. This is one of the reasons, privacy is one of fundamenta…
Maybe, do you have a source you could share please ? I often read this argument around but have not verified it. I've also heard some records produced under Napoleon were used. But this was a real crazy time. Hypothetical scenario (in the sense that I have not verified it, but I do think it's a very likely scenario to have happened): There were medical records of people with physical conditions before 1933 (so they c…
Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
251–260 of 447 posts
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's way different because big tech cos acquire and retain far more data about individuals than anyone ever expected to be available. 10-ish years ago, it wasn't possible to retroactively subpoena a year of minute-by-minute location history, because unless you had an ankle monitor, that data didn't exist. You couldn't get a letter-by-letter log of every term typed into a search engine or a log of the amount of time s…
Well you can also view things a different way. It will be a lot harder for real criminals to get away with anything in the future. Now it becomes scary only if the authorities decide to go amok and make criminals of us all, but assuming it goes this way without anyone pushing back is not too realistic.
Many of the things we consider just and right today were illegal at one point in time but change was eventually made because of people who would have been considered criminals.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#253"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#254"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
It’s 2020 and the EU still thinks more bureaucracy is the way to go. I am not entirely sure US websites should necessary spend more to accommodate GDPR, which itself should be revised and made less inconvenient.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. No way in hell that's true. Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.
The day before yesterday a work colleague asked me if I had read a particular book, the next day Amazon emailed me to recommend that book. Could be coincidence but what are the chances?
It can be a coincidence. You were probably asked or talked about hundreds of things in last week and noticed this one situation.
It can be just targetted marketing, perhaps your colleague googled the book or saw the book on Amazon after getting a random ad. Ad companies understand that if someone close to you liked a product, there is a chance you will like it to so they prioritize advertising similar things to those on your WiFi/location or background.
In any case, I find it very unlikely that our devices are listening to us talk and report it to ad servers. I doubt conspiracy of level to pull it off would be still a secret. It would need to have both Apple and Google engage in it, engineers working on it would have to keep silent, it should be virtually untraceable and so on. It's just much easier to explain as coincidence along with some targetting due to ads your social circles engaged with.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#256"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
lol just checked when GDPR was announced... 2016
[deleted]
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#257"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
lol just checked when GDPR was announced... 2016
Even a couple of years before being adopted in 2016, with interested parties being aware that it's coming and an outline of what to expect.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with you if our legal systems were built for that, but our legal systems are built to deal with a society that has privacy. People unknowingly commit crimes, or implicate themselves in crimes, all the time, because there are too many ways to do that. No reasonable person can be expected to avoid committing crimes when the government itself can't even keep track of the number of criminal laws there are.[…
I wrote this comment elsewhere below but it still applies The State has always been able to look up phone records, bank records, land records, criminal records, medical records etc etc as in order to pursue justice and prosecute. How is this any different?
Also don't forget the search warrant. I think this is what most closely matches the digital variant.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#259"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…
It’s 2020 and the EU still thinks more bureaucracy is the way to go. I am not entirely sure US websites should necessary spend more to accommodate GDPR, which itself should be revised and made less inconvenient.
What do you believe is most inconvenient about GDPR compliance?
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…
> State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. That doesn't mean there should be enormous databases of everything people do for the state to access at will.
they didn't access at will but with a warrant, there's a foundamental difference in that, which is the warrant process's guarantee oversight against abuse
beside, it's not a case of the state tracking persons unwittingly, it's persons willingly giving up their data to private companies.