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

Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

themarkup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#91

Post by kube-system »

itronitron wrote: post #80
kube-system wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

When I surf the information superhighway I create a unique data trail which is a unique expression created by me. I therefore claim copyright over the content of that data trail.

Copyright is only applicable at the moment at which facts are compiled into a creative work.

If you actually humanly typed out the sentence: "My time zone is UTC, my IP address is 127.0.0.1, and my default language is set to English" that sentence would be subject to copyright.

However, since the facts themselves are still not subject to copyright, someone can still legally (as far as copyright is concerned) take your sentence and run:

    INSERT INTO data_trail (username, timezone, ip_address, language)
    VALUES ("itronitron", "UTC", "127.0.0.1", "English");
Also, there is no need to "claim" copyright to anything. It is automatic.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#92

Post by kube-system »

arrosenberg wrote: post #79
kube-system wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

So by your logic, my parents should be able to sue data mining companies to vindicate their copyright claim on my data?

Because you were created by your parents?

Not exactly sure what your argument is, but if you want to know what qualifies as a "creative work", the law conveniently defines it in 17 U.S. Code § 102(a).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#93

Post by arp242 »

ignoramous wrote: post #86
arp242 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "private data"? Is your hair colour private data? Is the browser you use private data? Why? Or why not? Does it matter if I only record hair colour and the browser you use, or if I combine it with other data? These kind of things may sound okay superficially, but once you start defining things clearly in a way that can be incorporated in a workable law things get very hard very fast. Copyright, on the other h…

There are two different privacy issues at play. 1. You consent to being tracked in exchange for services consumed (Google Maps Navigation, for example). 2. You don't consent to it but you're still being tracked. Not only that, the data is then sold to any and every buyer. For example: https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/07/superhuman-i... OP has problems with #2. > Copyright, on the other hand, is much easie…

What is "tracking"? Is recording a server log tracking? What if it only records the pathname? What about the "visitor counter" GIFs from the 90s?

So that superhuman app tracks if someone read the message; WhatApp, Telegram, and Signal do that too with their read receipts. Is that tracking? Why? Or why not? And I don't see anything about selling this data in that article btw.

People keep using all these words like "privacy" and "tracking" and "personal data", but my point was you need to clearly define what you mean with that, in a way that's workable. And "every single last bit of data that could possibly be recorded" is not really a workable definition IMO.

These kind of things are what you might call "opposition politics"; it's all very easy to make vague proposals when you're in the opposition, but once you're in government and need to actually start enacting workable realistic laws that take all the various legitimate interests in account (and I think there is some legitimate interest in collecting some data) things get much harder.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#94

Post by kube-system »

specialist wrote: post #77
raspyberr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you unify two unrelated things? I think privacy is a right and copyright is so overstretched it literally works against its original intention. As an aside, the only part of "Intellectual Property" as an idea that I agree with is the right for an author to claim that they authored something. It shoudln't give them a right to control how its distributed or what people do with it. Why would you compare the ri…

To simplify the bookkeeping. When all data about me is mine, everything else falls into place.

This doesn't simply it, it complicates it.

With privacy, you are generally looking to prevent the redistribution of facts, but only in specific circumstances.

Copyright does a very different thing, where it only prevents the redistribution of more creative expressions, but does so in broad circumstances.

If you take the typical data elements that you want to keep private and apply copyright law to them, I think you'll end up with more problems than solutions. Facts -- like your name -- are something that people need to reproduce just to do basic things, like have a conversation with you. I don't think we need to start all conversations with:

"By starting a conversation with me, you hereby grant and will grant me and affiliated discussion participants a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, mention, perform, vocalize, remember and otherwise use your name for purposes of this conversation"

It sounds silly, but copyright is this broad in scope. It applies to everyone. For the purposes of privacy, you really need a much more narrow paradigm -- something that applies to strangers but not people who you expect to know things about you, like friends, family, or people you are voluntarily sharing with. This is probably why every privacy law on the planet is not an extension of copyright. They are two very different things.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#95

Post by shajznnckfke »

fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

If you knock on my door and ask me what time it is while wearing a button that says “don’t remember me!” but I remember you anyway, was that theft?

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#96

Post by missosoup »

fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

> Edit: With my wording, I was referring to this old pro-copyright ad: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

Or the better version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXkxSl4f6vw

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#97

Post by TylerE »

fxtentacle wrote: post #17
Semaphor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone agrees that this is theft No.

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

That isn't true at all.

No one has ever been sued for DOWNLOADING a movie. They get sued for UPLOADING a movie.

Important distinction. Mere possession is not a crime - everything is copyrighted, and it isn't the responsibility of someone holding a copy to know if the person that gave them that copy was authorized to to so.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#99

Post by ignoramous »

arp242 wrote: post #93
ignoramous wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two different privacy issues at play. 1. You consent to being tracked in exchange for services consumed (Google Maps Navigation, for example). 2. You don't consent to it but you're still being tracked. Not only that, the data is then sold to any and every buyer. For example: https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/07/superhuman-i... OP has problems with #2. > Copyright, on the other hand, is much easie…

What is "tracking"? Is recording a server log tracking? What if it only records the pathname? What about the "visitor counter" GIFs from the 90s? So that superhuman app tracks if someone read the message; WhatApp, Telegram, and Signal do that too with their read receipts. Is that tracking? Why? Or why not? And I don't see anything about selling this data in that article btw. People keep using all these words like "pr…

> * What is "tracking"? Is recording a server log tracking? What if it only records the pathname? What about the "visitor counter" GIFs from the 90s?*

I'd settle for personally / uniquely identifiable information as tracking.

> WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal do that too with their read receipts. Is that tracking? Why? Or why not?

1. There's an opt-out.

2. It is clear as a day that the other side can see when you've read the message.

3. Again, services consumed with consent.

> ...my point was you need to clearly define what you mean with that.

Agreed. I think PII (personally identifiable information) is a good start.

> ... it's all very easy to make vague proposals when you're in the opposition

Some organizations have been working long and hard over privacy issues online. There have been very well-defined, valid, and solid proposals from them. We'll see eventually what comes of those.

> ...need to actually start enacting workable realistic laws that take all the various legitimate interests in account things get much harder.

Agreed. You'd love this talk by B Schneier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJ-Ow2Lvg?t=39m39s

Post reply on HN