711–720 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Did the US respect the borders of Hawaii?
a) whataboutism isn't an argument b) if you expect me to defend in the slightest the US and it's own shady history regarding settler colonialism, rest assured, there is no risk of that.
You weren't making an argument. You were repeating the tedious 'coloniser Brits' trope as a 'zing' in your words. I'm just reminding you that your shit stinks too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So GDPR, which protects people from companies abusing personal data (which this case is about, not the online safety act) should be repealed? (no, its not the cookie law either.)
No because GDPR is better implemented and there are clear and reasonable guidelines to follow. This is just clueless policy makers fucking around.
They are a quango, rather than policy makers
Again they are not OFCOM, and they didn't make OSA, thats very much down to the previous tory government
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GDPR absolutely makes sense. It's my data and you must delete it if I ask.
The GPDR is far more complicated than just that superficial example. But I'm curious about how far you feel that assertion goes. Ignoring what the GPDR says exactly, how do you feel about the various examples? I have http request logs from requests that you've made. Do I have to delete them when you ask? You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy? I host an email service for me and a friend exclusively, you re…
Common law has the concept of reasonableness.
If you're a single person hosting a simple website, having logs is perfectly reasonable thing to have to check for fraud and other nefarious things.
> You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy?
Depends who hosts the email server, and is it commercial. Buisnesses need a purpose for holding onto emails, its not reasonable for a non business single person to have one.
> You answered a long thread about an esoteric computing question, hypothetically under the name denvercoder9, do I have to delete that comment? What about the replies to it which quote you?
Thats actually interesting, the only thing that PII is the name, so if the name is deleted thats complying.
> I have evidence that you committed a crime of some sort, do I have to delete that?
There is a specific carve out for criminality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases it's not your data, really, you didn't produce any of it. But it's data about you.
The only real information about me is data I produced myself. Anything else is just an observation and isn't neccesarily true at all.
> The only real information about me is data I produced myself.
Thats copyright law, which is whole 'nother kettle of fish. Its also one I don't know that well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GDPR absolutely makes sense. It's my data and you must delete it if I ask.
you generated it? It should be trivial for you to delete it then Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
One, the thing you "generate" ie typed out by hand, rather than got a machine to make, is copyright.
Data about you is GDPR
> Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
sounds like a projection...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No reason web businesses can't do the same. These aren't equivalent though. I can flash my ID to someone to buy cigarettes at my gas station and reasonably believe that no third party is storing my ID. The clerk looks at it (or scans it? I have actually never purchased anything requiring an ID before), and I go about my merry way. If I go online to consume adult content, I definitely do not want my identity to be a…
At least in the US, some grocery stores will scan IDs when someone buys alcohol. In some states they are required to do so. I would be very surprised if they didn't then store that information. As far as I know there's no law against it, and they'll gather whatever they can. Firearms dealers are required to keep information about their customers. In contrast, the recent laws here that I've looked at all make it illeg…
That may be true, but it doesn't seem to prevent stuff like this from happening.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/hack-age-verification-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the law, its implementation, or its impact on privacy. But 99% of people dislike it simply because they are heavily addicted to porn. The fact there have been much more privacy invasive laws introduced in the UK over the last decade which face little widespread outrage is the tell.
It's hard to keep this conversation in good faith if you're just gonna throw in some statistic you just made up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this is the only relevant case I can find or remember. "The MPAA had presented evidence showing that the majority of content linked to on IsoHunt was infringing content, that the search engine was tuned to assist users in finding infringing works, and that Fung himself had made remarks suggesting the purpose of the site was to allow users to download infringing content." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsoHun…
My question was "why do you think torrent sites in the USA that adhere to safe-harbor requirements don't exist?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to keep this conversation in good faith if you're just gonna throw in some statistic you just made up.
It's very obviously a figure of speech and not intended as a statistic.