Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it comes out that he was coordinating with the Harris campaign to help get her anti-lynching bill passed which had been dead before the incident due to extremely low rates of lynching in modern America? They attended protests together and were at least familiar if not friends.
Whose safety is threatened by that law?
Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
311–320 of 447 posts
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#312Earlier 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?
>How is this any different?
The cost of doing those lookups. Both in money and time. Looking up an entire life's history would have taken months if not more, and would involve a lot of legwork, from picking up the phone and making calls, to traveling around neighborhoods or farther. That cost limited the charging/prosecution only to people suspected of, or implicated in crimes. Today you can do that on a whim because you don't like a person or because they are your political/business opponents.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#314The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is. Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place? Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that…
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR adds a lot of regulatory red tape to things that were previously simple. It is not only for nefarious reasons that you might want to avoid GDPR. Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs. Want to use a third-party service? Now you need to make sure that you are using their GDPR-compliant plan, and that you are using their Amsterdam endpoints. Ma…
I mean you shouldn’t store any personal information in the logs to begin with.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.
It’s certainly much cheaper to simply block European users than to pay a lawyer to tell you what you need to change and then pay a programmer to implement these changes. Blocking the few European users is probably the right decision from an economic perspective.
Let's see just how much they like that.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 concer…
I bother reading those, and it's my fucking right to do so, as well as to stop using a service if I don't think it's worth the data they're taking as payment.
Arguing that I shouldn't have that right, because it bothers some people is like arguing against price tags because "they're annoying" and "Who looks at those before buying something anyway?".
And no, you don't click "I accept cookies", you click something along the lines of "I accept necessary cookies plus everything I've explicitly enabled", otherwise site is not GDPR compliant and you can just report them.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.
GDPR adds a lot of regulatory red tape to things that were previously simple. It is not only for nefarious reasons that you might want to avoid GDPR. Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs. Want to use a third-party service? Now you need to make sure that you are using their GDPR-compliant plan, and that you are using their Amsterdam endpoints. Ma…
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#319Earlier 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.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 concer…