Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 447 posts

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#261

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

ossworkerrights wrote: post #254
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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.

Unless I remember it incorrectly, GDPR doesn't even apply to websites that don't target EU citizens; so it really doesn't affect US websites that are clearly aimed primarily at the USA, just because some EU citizen might use it as well.

And if a foreign website wants to expand into the european market, then yes, no matter its country of origin, it will have to follow EU rules.

So, in conclusion, geoblocking the EU is just plain stupid.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#262

Post by h0h0h0h0111 »

ryanmccullagh wrote: post #106
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

It’s clear you have no idea what this actor did. He staged a hate crime in Chicago and the main cook county attorney dropped the case after CPD proved it was fake. With your radical views, where do you draw the line? Will you vote to protect criminals, child abusers, rapist? All in an effort for “privacy”?

Is this not a standard tactic for moving the bar of what's acceptable? Similar to the San Bernardino case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...), it makes sense for LE/Government to cherry-pick cases with defendants who have committed terrible crimes to create precedent for their new methods, as it's harder politically to take a position "defending" them. Defence of holistic rights can be painted as defence of a terrorist/racist/paedophile etc to score points.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#263

Post by ben174 »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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…

I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal there.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#264

Post by thaumasiotes »

stiray wrote: post #215
drevil-v2 wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

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…

> 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

As a legacy of this, the US government doesn't count Jews in the census. (And, to preserve nondiscrimination values, doesn't count other religious denominations either.)

Interestingly, the census does enthusiastically collect race data on everyone. This is logically incoherent; racial groups (such as the Jews, actually) are at least as much a natural target of extermination efforts as religious groups.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#265

Post by ahakki »

ddalex wrote: post #224
nilkn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He allegedly did something quite bad, and if guilty I’d like him to face justice. But if the cost of convicting him is setting a precedent that effectively strips hundreds of millions of people of their privacy and subjects us all to an unofficial form of state surveillance, then let him walk.

How is this different from a warrant that lets prosecutors read your snail mail? I mean this passed the proper checks and balances of the law, and the only reason this is on HN is that's about electronic instead of paper mail, and it involves a big Corp.

The post office doesn't have a copy of all the snail mail I sent and received over the past years. Gmail definitely does.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#266

Post by kilotaras »

goatinaboat wrote: post #199
Mauricio_ wrote: post #137

Earlier 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?

Depends on how many irrelevant emails Amazon send to the whole population.

See: lottery fallacy [1]

https://lucidphilosophy.com/18-lottery-fallacy/

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#267

Post by ben174 »

beachy wrote: post #259
ossworkerrights wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For the user, having a pop up on every single site explaining what a cookie is.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#268

Post by tremon »

partisan wrote: post #165
kempbellt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You went 61 in a 60. Here's a ticket. Also, because you broke the law once and I'm in a pedantic mood, I'm issuing a warrant to go through all of your GPS history for the past two years. Oh look, 1 year ago you went 36 in a 35. Another ticket for you. 2 years ago you jaywalked. Another ticket." At what point do we want the legal system to no longer have the power to scrutinize an individual's history? I don't believ…

It’s not the same thing. He is suing the city of Chicago for “malicious prosecution”. As part of that lawsuit, the city must attempt to show that the prosecution was not malicious. That’s different than stating that you would like to browse through someone’s history for the purpose of finding crimes where they may not exist.

What? They're collecting evidence post facto to argue whether the previous prosecution was malicious or not?

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#269

Post by Y-bar »

ben174 wrote: post #263
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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…

I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal there.

The stupid thing is that GDPR says nothing about requiring those policy pop ups, that law was discontinued (amended) when GDPR took effect. But no requirements for these pop ups remain

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#270

Post by andrepd »

ben174 wrote: post #263
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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…

I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal there.

It's training people to ignore those altogether and click "allow" on everything out of frustration. They should have gone with a strategy focused on browser controls. Mandating browsers block 3rd party cookies by default, for example, with explicit opt in.
Post reply on HN