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

271–280 of 447 posts

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

#271

Post by himinlomax »

harry8 wrote: post #109
ryanmccullagh wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

It's clear you have made up your mind without the facts. Note the Tribune's reticence to come to that conclusion based on the actual evidence? I have zero opinion about it. Separate to that this comment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the parent comment, whether you agree with the parent or not. Rights should exist for everyone, not just everyone you happen to like. Whether this warrant has gone too far as…

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?

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

#272

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

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.

You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every website wants to track you.

Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many websites disregard this completely and have tracking cookies enabled by default)

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

#273

Post by makomk »

russler23 wrote: post #124
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…

“Ignite racial tensions”? There was no chance of that happening. Smollett was a laughingstock the day the story hit the news. Foxx declined to prosecute because she correctly saw it as a ridiculous and embarrassing stunt. Another thing to keep in mind: “igniting racial tensions” as an investigatory justification was how MLK got labeled the gravest domestic security threat to the United States. You’re advocating a cat…

Smollett may have been a laughingstock amongst people who were actually able to think for a moment about how plausible his claims were, or (if we're being more cynical) amongst people outside the left wing who were inclined not to believe his claims from the start. Most world media and all his fellow celebrities not only went along with his claims, they went after anyone who questioned them right up until the point it became clear that the police had indisputable evidence.

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

#274

Post by lrem »

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.

Eh, no. Cookie warnings were a legislative failure that was fixed with gdpr. But they trained users to click without thinking. So now many companies do disguise the explicit consent to enable tracking to look like the old meaningless cookie pop up. But they're legally a completely different thing.

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

#275

Post by tremon »

stickfigure wrote: post #185
ethbro wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warrants shouldn't be intended to discover evidence, they should be intended to secure evidence that is expected to exist in a particular location . This distinction wasn't a major concern when the former was impractical. Because of digital records and search agents, suddenly either is practical. The intent of privacy law has always been to raise the cost of targeted prosecution. E.g. "We want to charge this person w…

I'm missing something. In this case, the state is expecting evidence to exist in the form of incriminating email communication between Smollett and his manager, and possibly additional people. From the public evidence so far, it sure seems like a reasonable expectation! I'm a pretty hardcore civil libertarian, and I'm having a hard time faulting the judge here. What else do you expect?

I would expect a warrant for just the e-mail exchanges between Smollet and his manager (and perhaps other digital communication methods), not for his entire life.

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

#276

Post by martin_a »

ben174 wrote: post #267
beachy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You only need those pop-ups if you are using cookies which are not "technical cookies".

If you are using tracking technology based on cookies or anything that collects information specific to a user, you will need to show the cookie banner and give an opt-in. Otherwise tracking/analytics is not allowed.

So... Every site you see this banner on has some dead bodies in their cellar and wants you to move on and not take a closer look. Just click "Accept all" and everything will be fine...

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

#277

Post by ACS_Solver »

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 cookie policy popups are, at best, an intentionally annoying way of complying with the GDPR or not compliant at all at worst.

GDPR has the great idea that you shouldn't be tracked unless you consent. The popups are a way of forcing consent because users just click through them. However, the default should be that you're NOT tracked and opting in should be explicit, which possibly means all those popups that begin tracking you after one click are not compliant. Then I've also seen sites where opting out is difficult - there's a hard to find link that takes you to some settings page where you need a dozen clicks to disable tracking cookies. That's definitely not GDPR-compliant.

Despite the practical annoyances, I direct my frustration at the cancerous advertising industry that has turned the Web into a giant ad platform, and so the industry is very intentionally undermining GDPR protections.

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

#278

Post by sjcsjc »

mathemancer wrote: post #175
sjcsjc wrote: post #171

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries" Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200109053829/https://www.chica...

Thanks very much.

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

#279

Post by iso947 »

rtyturtu wrote: post #249
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…

Maybe geolocked sites shouldnt be posted on HN unless OP provides screenshoot or tldr of contet there

It’s not obvious if a site is geolocked. I know Bbc is blocked in China from experience, but I wouldn’t expect that others would know. Hacker news is available in China (at least last time I was there).

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

#280

Post by johannes1234321 »

ben174 wrote: post #267
beachy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not due to the GDPR, but the "cookie directive" (2009/136/EC) And there are a lot of ways site operators could avoid those popups or make them non-intrusive, but they choose to ...
Post reply on HN