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

281–290 of 447 posts

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

#281

Post by kevinmcconnell »

Y-bar wrote: post #269
ben174 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It wasn't discontinued. It was amended to take into account aspects of GDPR, but the rules are very much still in effect.

It's covered by PECR. There's a good overview of the rules here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/cookies-a...

The main change GDPR brought to it (as I understand it) is that it introduced stricter rules about how consent works. But even though GDPR doesn't specifically require cookie warning, it does require that you get informed consent from people before you store personally identifiable information about them; in many cases this effectively means getting their permission before using tracking cookies.

So tl/dr, it's primarily PECR that covers cookie handling, but GDPR also plays a role.

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

#282

Post by deith »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #272
ben174 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disre…

>You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users

So they are mandatory, since all websites NEED advertising revenue and analytics to function.

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

#283

Post by diffeomorphism »

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.

Cookies are unrelated to GDPR. Completely separate older law.

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

#284

Post by gmueckl »

martin_a wrote: post #276
ben174 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is technically correct from a legal point of view. But it's a different story when Google threatens to delist your website for a missing cookie popup.

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

#285

Post by caspper69 »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #81
Mirioron wrote: post #67

Earlier 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?

Google records include every place you've ever been (if you use an Android device), every wifi hotspot you've ever connected to, every website visited, every app executed, every message (text or email) you've sent. It's like having a voice recorder permanently on your shoulder and then having to turn that over to law enforcement.

It's very bad. Text and email should be private, unless it is in the context of the action being pursued. This is just too much data to just turn over willy nilly. Very slippery slope.

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

#286

Post by DontTellAnyone »

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?

The thousands of Euros spent on lawyers and development time to become compliant, plus all the time wasted.

Really a great accomplishment by the EU... in addition to clicking a shitty "I accept cookies" banner on every damn website I visit, I now frequently also have to click another popup for GDPR and multiple checkboxes for GDPR when I signup somewhere. As if anyone ever bothered reading those.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all just a huge waste and the internet was better off before politicians got involved.

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

#287

Post by iso947 »

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?

I read a horoscope and some of its predictions came right.

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

#288

Post by makomk »

throwGuardian wrote: post #206
onetimemanytime wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.

I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable "probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for anything to nail him As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them despite this knowledge. How…

The supposed assault on him took place slightly more than 11 montha ago in January 2019, and there's evidence suggesting he was plotting it in advance of that date. He sued the city of Chicago claiming malicious prosecution in November. One year about covers the time period where there is definitely going to be evidence related to this.

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

#289

Post by Hermel »

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…

Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.

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

#290

Post by nothrabannosir »

ekianjo wrote: post #238
cookiecaper wrote: post #152

Earlier 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.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Post reply on HN