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

Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

nbcsandiego.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#101

Post by mindslight »

tomhow wrote: post #100
testing22321 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN will not do this. The only thing they do is change your username on every comment you’ve ever made to something else. But they’re all the same , so you can still link all the comments to one identity, and if even one comment makes it clear it’s a real person, then they all are. Requesting anything more results in them saying “oh yes, we respect users wishes, blah, blah” and no action.

> The ability to disown a specific set of content We are willing to do this. > Requesting anything more results in them saying “oh yes, we respect users wishes, blah, blah” and no action We gladly work with users to redact any material that identifies a person or reveals their location, or that otherwise poses risk to their welfare.

As a third party observer, it feels like "work with" could still be hiding a lot of thorny differences in judgement over what constitutes material that should be removed. That's why I was outlining a broad-brush mechanical policy that would cover most of the cases (unlinking a user's contributions across different threads from each other).

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#102

Post by tomhow »

mindslight wrote: post #101
tomhow wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ability to disown a specific set of content We are willing to do this. > Requesting anything more results in them saying “oh yes, we respect users wishes, blah, blah” and no action We gladly work with users to redact any material that identifies a person or reveals their location, or that otherwise poses risk to their welfare.

As a third party observer, it feels like "work with" could still be hiding a lot of thorny differences in judgement over what constitutes material that should be removed. That's why I was outlining a broad-brush mechanical policy that would cover most of the cases (unlinking a user's contributions across different threads from each other).

The problem is that each case is different, and there's no one approach that would cover all of the cases. Indeed I can see that it doesn't actually address the concern in this case, now that I've been able to find out what the account is and investigate the issue.

More broadly, this is why it's extremely unfair to make public accusations the way this user has done in this thread. The way we handle these cases actually takes far more time and involves more effort and care than it would take to implement the approach being advocated here.

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#103

Post by tomhow »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #97
tomhow wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like you’re more concerned about keeping threads from years ago coherent than you are about my wishes and safety. This is obviously not true. We care about thread persistence and coherence as a default, because some of HN's most historically significant threads are from the earliest years. We will take reasonable steps to protect people's identity and safety once we know the specifics of the situation. We…

Without knowing (or wanting to know) any of the particulars beyond what's posted in this thread I think I have to agree with the other poster here.

The particulars matter a lot in this particular case.

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#104

Post by tomhow »

testing22321 wrote: post #95
tomhow wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like you’re more concerned about keeping threads from years ago coherent than you are about my wishes and safety. This is obviously not true. We care about thread persistence and coherence as a default, because some of HN's most historically significant threads are from the earliest years. We will take reasonable steps to protect people's identity and safety once we know the specifics of the situation. We…

It is impressive how you keep repeating that line while not addressing suggestions to fix the problem by myself and others. You’re saying “we do minimum effort” . I am telling you It is not enough, and you refuse to even acknowledge that. You are saying “tough luck” in fancier language.

Please stop attributing false quotes and sentiments to us. The approach we take is necessarily tailored to each case, because each case is different. We spend far more time, effort and care to address these requests than it would take to simply do what you've asked of us, and simply doing what you've asked of us would not address the concern you've expressed. Your case is unusual. We continue to be willing to help. A cooperative rather than belligerent approach will make it easier for everyone to get the best outcome.

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#105

Post by testing22321 »

tomhow wrote: post #102
mindslight wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a third party observer, it feels like "work with" could still be hiding a lot of thorny differences in judgement over what constitutes material that should be removed. That's why I was outlining a broad-brush mechanical policy that would cover most of the cases (unlinking a user's contributions across different threads from each other).

The problem is that each case is different, and there's no one approach that would cover all of the cases. Indeed I can see that it doesn't actually address the concern in this case, now that I've been able to find out what the account is and investigate the issue. More broadly, this is why it's extremely unfair to make public accusations the way this user has done in this thread. The way we handle these cases actual…

So then you should implement the approach being advocated here.

You said yourself it would take less effort, and the outcome is better.

Win, win.

Re: Californians' data deletion requests, DROP, become enforceable Aug. 1

#106

Post by EA-3167 »

amazingamazing wrote: post #34
EA-3167 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you knew those were the conditions when you joined? Yes.

Ok. Luckily people who make the rules don’t have such ideas.

You might want to check again, the people who run this forum certainly do, and no aspect of any existing US or EU law does either. Remember your personal interpretations and feelings are just that, they aren't the law or the rules of the places you choose to participate in.
Post reply on HN