21–30 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than one problem can be addressed at a time
But you dilute resources and focus.
How long, in your opinion, should we not dilute our resources and focus? I mean, there's always more stuff to focus on all the time.
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
> Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Yes. Because the line between companies and government is very thin. (government has access to those companie's data, more or less legaly).
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
"""
The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil
"""
Governments increasingly rely on the vast amounts of data stored by private companies to target specific people or groups of people.
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
> "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? The problem is that companies tracking your every move for the purpose of ad targeting means all that data is concentrated in a single place where the government (or another bad actor) can search through.
I understand that what these companies are doing is illegal, and thus the court ruled correctly. But I cannot help but wonder if we, the public, are really focusing on the right thing here? Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Why is the EU regulating privacy topics to the point were we no longer have acces…
Keep in mind that this is also:
* "Companies are using your reading history to build a profile of you, including political stance, age, gender, location, religion, group affiliations, network of people you know" and a host of other things.
This data is then used to target ads and campains. This is no big deal if it's trying to push you to buy a bit more Mountain Dew, or to figure out that you can better the dental healt in Jefferson County, Idaho by showing up there in a van handing out free samples of toothpaste.
It is however a bigger deal when it's used to sway your opinions on political, legal and social matters by feeding you lies.
It's a deal when it's used by one country to target individuals in the neighbouring country to leak government secrets by pinpointing local groups and geographic areas where you have a good chance of recruiting such agents.
That's why certain countries, in this case Norway don't want this data under contrl of other governments, the U.S. in this case. (While Meta/Facebook owns this data, it's in effect under control of the U.S. government judicially)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is utter nonsense. We have the capability to do both, we can both work to stop private companies from tracking us, as well as work to stop our governments snooping on us. Framing it as if we had to choose one or the other is misleading.
I don't think that the public is very good at paying attention to two things at the same time. I think that the "ad targeting privacy" discussion is a borderline red herring that is focusing the debate away from what matters. Giving the public a feeling that they achieved something, while violating privacy through the backdoor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is utter nonsense. We have the capability to do both, we can both work to stop private companies from tracking us, as well as work to stop our governments snooping on us. Framing it as if we had to choose one or the other is misleading.
I don't think that the public is very good at paying attention to two things at the same time. I think that the "ad targeting privacy" discussion is a borderline red herring that is focusing the debate away from what matters. Giving the public a feeling that they achieved something, while violating privacy through the backdoor.
This is a regulatory proceeding. The public isn’t involved.
It’s bad strategy to go all in at one point on the front; you’ll be flanked. Focus entirely on government collection, as the U.S. did, and you’ll find companies not only running free but then turning around and selling their data to the government you thought you were on top of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But its not just used for ad targeting for things you might actually want to buy. It's used for political campaigns, and social manipulation. Governments can also compel the private company to reveal information they have about people.
> Governments can also compel the private company to reveal information they have about people. This is the big deal. Private companies collect data at volumes, and at levels of detail, that governments would never be allowed to do. It's easier and cheaper to let the private folks do it, then buy it from them. They are already doing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is "companies are using your reading history to target ads" really the same level of dangerous as "your government wants to read all your messages"? Yes. Because the line between companies and government is very thin. (government has access to those companie's data, more or less legaly).
But these companies do not collect chat data. Whatsapp is end to end encrypted. It is my government who wants to break that encryption.