331–340 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intelligence agencies literally use ad data to do "targeted killing" what are you even talking about? Ex-NSA Chief: 'We Kill People Based on Metadata'...
So terrorists? You're concerned data logging may harm terrorists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did verify with an attorney that since I wasn't involved and made sure the owner knew what was what, that I had no legal obligations to disclose.
What about your moral obligation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this. I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop. You’re the one bringing the extra opinions in…
> I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this. When I say mistake here, I specifically mean "mistake as far as their goal of making the right choice". And I mean that in the moment, using knowledge they have at that time, just like you're defin…
How are data deletion requests supposed to be handled in practice, when the only way to be sure is to physically destroy the hardware that data was stored on ? (Especially the case for transistor-based storage, and even more so when wear leveling is being used.)
Or is this is actually a "pinky promise" by the company to not restore the data (or else they will have to face legal consequences) ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m completely sympathetic to making companies more liable for data security. However, until data breaches regularly lead to severe outcomes for subjects whose personal data was leaked, and those outcomes can be causally linked to the breaches in an indisputable manner, it seems unlikely for such legislation to be passed.
Nearly everyone's data has been leaked already. Any strong protections would only protect people who haven't been born yet imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, perpetual motion is also considered unsolvable. Perhaps the right regulation would make it happen? Or... maybe that line of reasoning isn't super strong.
There's a big difference between breaking the physical laws of the universe and Big Tech not wanting to spend money on moderators.
But my point was that you asserted that regulations can overcome claims of impossibility. I was just illustrating that is not always true, and therefore we can't assume it is true here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're all bad people, just some of us are more comfortable with our corruption being visible to others to a higher degree. If the GP's story is true (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), then there are clearly differences in the degree of "badness" between people. GP chose to resign from his job, while his manager chose to be negligent and dishonest. So, even if we're all bad people, there are less bad and m…
I understand your perspective, but I maintain that "good" (morally pure) isn't a category any of us belong to. We're all lying, hateful people to one extent or another, and lying hateful people aren't "good", even if we haven't lied or hated as much as other lying, hateful people. "Less evil" isn't synonymous with "good". The argument that profit motivation is the origin of shady business practices ignores the existe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's pretty clear that you are directly harmed if someone takes naked photos of you without your knowledge or consent and then keeps them Sure. In those cases, there are damages and that creates liability. I'm not sure what damages I've ever faced from any leak of e.g. my SSN.
The real kicker is trying to prove which leak your SSN came from. If your SSN gets leaked by 3 different companies, and 6 months later someone uses your identity to commit some crime, you can't have each company share 1/3 of the blame.
It's not like there's a "conservation of blame" law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very doubtful they've not considered it. When I go to coffee shops, I see maybe a quarter-to-half the laptops have a shade over the webcam. But when I see people using their phones, I've never once seen them use a shade, piece of tape, or post-it note. They use the front-facing camera of their phone so often that the temporary inconvenience of removing a shade outweighs the long-term inconvenience of malware snapping…
But do you think they're taking a measured inventory of the possible consequences, both personal and societal, and saying, "No, I don't value that" ? Extremely few decisions that people make are deeply calculated with cold logic. Most decisions are primarily unconscious, automatic, and emotional. Example: A persons hears it's good to have a webcam cover, so they get one. Nobody mentions doing it for their phone, so t…