41–50 of 135 posts
At the same time I wonder what happens when users realize everything they look at is now more visible than ever? People just make fake accounts for browsing?
Maybe it should be that way, but there's an interesting dynamic to "what you look at (even if not a full picture) is visible to some people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit This is an incredibly bold statement, and something I really cannot relate to having lived in Europe for over a decade. It comes across as more of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who believes oversight or accountability of any kind is by definition a needless burden.
I’m an incredibly bold guy. And I would personally just stop operating in the EU if it was between that and being accountable to their bureaucrats.
This is the ludicrous part: > LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence. Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection
I wonder if they will be able to make any argument along the lines of: we’re much more confident about the identities of paying customers so we think there’s less privacy risk in that case. I think they should lose the case but I’m curious if anyone can think of a good argument for their side, at all (in the European context where there are data laws, “it’s their website they do what they want” is the conventional US…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wouldn't that mean every piece of cctv footage that has me in it also belongs to me? i don't see it (no pun intended).
I don’t think anyone has tested that in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if it should belong to you but fact that most CCTV footage is (or at least was) stored by small independent entities means that you aren’t aware that your CCTV data exists, or wouldn’t find it worthwhile to request it all. It would be an interesting angle of attack against classic surveillance, though. If there are any vendors that store the video…
It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
I'm not a fan of how LinkedIn operates ... or the culture there in general. At the same time I wonder what happens when users realize everything they look at is now more visible than ever? People just make fake accounts for browsing? Maybe it should be that way, but there's an interesting dynamic to "what you look at (even if not a full picture) is visible to some people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's the point. If the data pertains to you, it's yours. No "iff I pay for it".
exactly, but it doesn’t pertain to you until you pay. if we assume there’s a directional graph with edges labeled as “visited”. what linkedin is offering is to traverse it backwards for a fee. what they’re demanding is ludicrous. pure entitlement that would have horrible ramifications for all social media platforms. should a gdpr export include who has unliked/unreposted your posts too? it definitely pertains to you.
Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.
Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. They have such a strong argument here, too. I can imagine that whoever came up with this is very pleased with theirselves, and rightfully so.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think standing in for people's rights against the profit interests of transnational corporations means "making life difficult"? Whose life exactly? That of the CEO of Microsoft?
> Oh I LOVE this, we can't have enough of these privacy-focused non-profits making tech companies' lives difficult. Literally the comment I replied to.