The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler
Now actually read that link and notice how far away that story is from Bernie Madoff's.If the argument for the GDPR is really that "nobody should be allowed to post on the Internet that this guy had his house repossessed," how come the (Spanish) newspaper doesn't have to take its story down? The ECJ ruling only says the (American) search engine that has to delist a valid web page.
I hope you understand how "the freedom to report stories of public interest" is different from "freedom of the press."
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler they might as well try to cover it up under the DMCA instead, with just as much standing. Now what do you conclude from that?
Umm... that you're spewing gibberish because you have no valid points to make? What exactly am I supposed to conclude from that?
Are you seriously this fucking retarded? (Don’t answer, rhetorical question)
The RTBF cannot be used to take down reports of murder. The DMCA cannot he used to take down reports of murder, either. Both can be used to take down content, when they apply.
Google has provisions to take down content due to violations of either. The hypothetical murderer you’re talking about has no standing in either case, but if Google decides to pre-emptively take down things anyway, that works with the DMCA just as well as with the RTBF.In other words, you’re talking about things where the RTBF doesn’t apply.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I hope you understand how "the freedom to report stories of public interest" is different from "freedom of the press."
If I reply to that, we're getting into an endless debate about what "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Press" actually mean. We all already know that their interpretation is much more broad in the US. (Since this thread was already Godwin'ed, I'll just leave the keyword "Holocaust denial" here.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
No, "the newspapers" haven't. Most of them were well aware of exactly how disastrous it is and were actively fighting against it.
No, that didn't happen. There were some newspaper articles against it, but the executives of the publishers printing those newspapers still supported the "link tax". Journalists over here traditionally have a lot of freedom inside their organizations.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
In other words, you’re talking about things where the RTBF doesn’t apply.
So what you're saying is, you're completely ignorant of the principle of a "chilling effect". Gotcha.
The comparison to the DMCA is actually rather apt from this perspective. When you have a system of extrajudicial censorship backed by the threat of legal liability, with no legal penalties for filing a false report, all of the incentives are stacked in favor of the entity pushing for censorship. We've got 20 years of DMCA abuse showing this over and over again.
When you have approximately 10,000 people per day submitting such a request, backed by a threat of a lawsuit in a hostile court... the
ic details of whether or not the person submitting the request has standing or has a valid case lose a lot of relevance. Even if they could hypothetically win every last one of the individual cases should they come to court, they don't have the resources to do so! If nothing else, they don't have that many lawyers!So the actual effect of the law is that far more content actually gets censored than the law theoretically is supposed to allow, and you'd better believe that the people pushing for it and the people who drafted it were well aware of this principle after 20 years of the DMCA to use for reference! So yes, the RTBF bloody well can be used to take down reports of murder, because it is doing exactly that and doing so successfully.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
So yes, the RTBF bloody well can be used to take down reports of murder, because it is doing exactly that and doing so successfully.
[Citation needed], especially for the part you highlighted.
But I feel like we may finally be getting somewhere. It seems like you're finally willing to admit that the RTBF doesn't actually include what you initially claimed and that using it to take down "evidence of misdeeds" is an abuse of the legal system. If you can truly acknowledge that, then maybe this discussion will not be completely pointless.
-
@dfdub
When the law was designed to be abused in this very way, (see above, re: well-understood precedent established by the DMCA,) that distinction matters a whole lot less in the real world than it does in ry. For all intents and purposes, the law includes everything that people can get away with invoking it to accomplish, and with no penalties for abuse, that's pretty much everything.
-
@Mason_Wheeler obvious consequences are not unforseen.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
When the law was designed to be abused in this very way
And now we're in conspiracy theory territory again.
-
@dfdub As @Benjamin-Hall put it, "obvious consequences are not unforeseen." Which would you prefer to believe? That the people drafting this law knew exactly what they were doing... or that these legislators, whose job it is specifically to be a specialist in these matters and understand things like this, had all the information available to them and were just that clueless and incompetent?
-
@Mason_Wheeler
It baffles me that you cannot see that a large part of the problem is Google's monopoly, not a particular piece of legislation. Why is it so bad when Google approves removal requests? Why do some people need the RTBF in the first place? (Google bombing, anyone?)So, to answer your question:
Which would you prefer to believe? That the people drafting this law knew exactly what they were doing... or that these legislators, whose job it is specifically to be a specialist in these matters and understand things like this, had all the information available to them and were just that clueless and incompetent?
First of all, legislators are rarely specialists in the matters they're legislating. There's plenty of proof of that. This is not limited to any country or the EU.
Secondly, again, the right to be forgotten (in the sense you're criticizing, namely removing search engine results) is not explicitly codified in law anywhere. Not before GDPR and not after it.
If you look at the past few years and then regulations that have been passed in the EU, the motivation of lawmakers are pretty clear: They've realized they cannot break the big tech monopolies, so they want to at least regulate them. Were some of those attempts, like the "link tax", misguided? Certainly, yes. We're they all nefarious attempts to kill Google and/or the Freedom of Speech? Certainly not.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Is Google not entitled to freedom of speech?
No because it's not a person. Currently AI is excluded as well.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler
It baffles me that you cannot see that a large part of the problem is Google's monopolyWhat monopoly? If anyone doesn't like Google, they're perfectly free to use DuckDuckGo or even Bing. There's nothing stopping anyone from moving to other search engines, and a lot of people are in fact doing so. Given that the inability to do so when you want to is what defines a monopoly, you're completely full of crap on this point.
Why is it so bad when Google approves removal requests?
Are you seriously asking what's so bad about censorship?
Really?!?Why do some people need the RTBF in the first place?
That's a very good question. Why does anyone need it? What legitimate purpose does it serve?
First of all, legislators are rarely specialists in the matters they're legislating. There's plenty of proof of that. This is not limited to any country or the EU.
Legislators are specialists in the matter of legislating. This includes having staff members who are specialists in subject-matter areas so that they can get relevant information on the subject.
Secondly, again, the right to be forgotten (in the sense you're criticizing, namely removing search engine results) is not explicitly codified in law anywhere. Not before GDPR and not after it.
In the USA, there's a concept of "case law", that court rulings hold a weight of law just the same as black-letter legislative law, as they provide an authoritative interpretation of what the law means. It's probably subtly different in Europe, but I'd be surprised if it was all that different, given that the whole thing started from European courts legislating the RTBF into existence from the bench. And that was explicitly about search engines from the very beginning.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler they might as well try to cover it up under the DMCA instead, with just as much standing.
Umm... that you're spewing gibberish because you have no valid points to make?
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
The comparison to the DMCA is actually rather apt from this perspective.
Glad you turned around 180° on that.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I hope you understand how "the freedom to report stories of public interest" is different from "freedom of the press."
If I reply to that, we're getting into an endless debate about what "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Press" actually mean. We all already know that their interpretation is much more broad in the US.
Yeah, exactly. The EU and the ECJ are trying to enforce "the freedom to report on stories of public interest" as a replacement for "freedom of the press." That's the actual thing we're complaining about.
You can argue that it's more just to be merciful to the guy and have the government ban people from reporting on the Internet that his house was foreclosed. But that's not what you've been arguing.
You, and more broadly the ECJ, are arguing that the guy doesn't have a right to make the Spanish newspaper take the story down. But he does have a right to make the American search engine stop publishing the link to the newspaper article.
So some people are allowed to publish true facts that nobody disputes. But other people aren't allowed to publish the same facts.
Why is that? Why doesn't the GDPR prevent the newspaper from keeping the original story on their website?
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Is Google not entitled to freedom of speech?
No because it's not a person.
Google is a group of people. How many people can be in the group before it loses free speech rights?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Why is that? Why doesn't the GDPR prevent the newspaper from keeping the original story on their website?
Just a side note, the RTBF thing predates the GDPR, so they’re obviously not the same.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
In the USA, there's a concept of "case law", that court rulings hold a weight of law just the same as black-letter legislative law, as they provide an authoritative interpretation of what the law means. It's probably subtly different in Europe
Case law works very differently in other legislations. Most court decisions have zero legal value outside the specific case. Only the highest courts can make universally binding legal decisions.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Why is that? Why doesn't the GDPR prevent the newspaper from keeping the original story on their website?
Did this guy even try to get the Spanish newspaper to remove the articles? (Honest question)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Are you seriously asking what's so bad about censorship?
Do you understand rhetorical questions? Maybe you should look at the context and not reply to every single sentence separately.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
In the USA, there's a concept of "case law", that court rulings hold a weight of law just the same as black-letter legislative law, as they provide an authoritative interpretation of what the law means. It's probably subtly different in Europe
Case law works very differently in other legislations. Most court decisions have zero legal value outside the specific case. Only the highest courts can make universally binding legal decisions.
Such as the CJEU that ruled in the case we're actually talking about here?
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Why is that? Why doesn't the GDPR prevent the newspaper from keeping the original story on their website?
Did this guy even try to get the Spanish newspaper to remove the articles? (Honest question)
Yes. The courts explicitly ruled that the RTBF does not apply to the newspaper, but it does apply to Google, because
.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Are you seriously asking what's so bad about censorship?
Do you understand rhetorical questions? Maybe you should look at the context and not reply to every single sentence separately.
Why are you dodging the question?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Are you seriously asking what's so bad about censorship?
Do you understand rhetorical questions? Maybe you should look at the context and not reply to every single sentence separately.
Why are you dodging the question?
Because it's a nonsensical question that only detracts from what I was actually talking about. Please re-read the posts you replied to, understand why and how you misunderstood what I said and you'll have your reply.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
It's probably subtly different in Europe,
It's massively different but that doesn't stop you from going on and using your US viewpoint on European law and courts.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Because it's a nonsensical question that only detracts from what I was actually talking about.
I don't have any indication of "what you're actually talking about" other than what you actually talk about. And what you actually said was:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Why is it so bad when Google approves removal requests?
The only context I can see that might possibly be relevant is a false premise: that Google is a monopoly. And even if this were true, which it isn't, how does monopoly status make censorship OK? (If anything, I'd think that in this particular case it would make it even worse: shut down information distribution at a single point of failure, and you've censored it for everyone!)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
And even if this were true, which it isn't, how does monopoly status make censorship OK?
I already told you the rhetorical question refers to what I wrote before and doesn't make sense on its own. If you still don't get what I was trying to say, please just disregard what I wrote and stop putting ridiculous statements in my mouth. I can already feel my brain cells committing suicide. Thank you.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I already told you the rhetorical question refers to what I wrote before and doesn't make sense on its own.
Yes, exactly. What you wrote before that is that Google is a monopoly.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Google is a group of people. How many people can be in the group before it loses free speech rights?
Dude, it's a basic legal principle. In the eyes of the law there are persons and things. Things can only act through persons. Some things can get additional rights, like a company and other forms of groups recognized by the law at hand. These 'groups' don't have the same rights as people, simply because they are not people.
One. If I make a legal company as sole owner I can exercise my freedom personally and then don't enjoy that right for my company, because my company isn't me. I can sell it but I can't sell 'me'. I can sell my time and derivatives but not 'me'. That would be slavery.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Yes, exactly. What you wrote before that is that Google is a monopoly.
No, that was not my previous statement, that was the premise of that statement. Jesus, it feels like I'm teaching a middle school debate team here.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
In the USA, there's a concept of "case law", that court rulings hold a weight of law just the same as black-letter legislative law, as they provide an authoritative interpretation of what the law means. It's probably subtly different in Europe
Case law works very differently in other legislations. Most court decisions have zero legal value outside the specific case. Only the highest courts can make universally binding legal decisions.
Such as the CJEU that ruled in the case we're actually talking about here?
You know, I just gave you an honest answer to your question, since it seemed like you were curious. And you immediately used it as ammunition to indirectly accuse me of not staying on topic.
Can we please at least try to argue in good faith?
-
@dfdub Your previous statement, in its entirety, was:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
When the law was designed to be abused in this very way
And now we're in conspiracy theory territory again.
How is that relevant to the necessity for censorship?
Filed under: The first rule of holes
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub Your previous statement, in its entirety, was:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
When the law was designed to be abused in this very way
And now we're in conspiracy theory territory again.
How is that relevant to the necessity for censorship?
Filed under: The first rule of holes
Now you've even lost the ability to find the right post.
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Now you've even lost the ability to find the right post.
That was the post that I replied to, which prompted the response in question. By any reasonable interpretation, that is "the previous statement." Stop
and stop expecting me to be able to read your mind. If you believe some specific arbitrary past statement of yours posted at some point in this 430+ posts thread is relevant in this context, even though you never did a single thing to link the two in a way relevant to this format, cite which one it is and how they're related. But for heaven's sake, stop being Fozzie Bear! Otherwise, you got nothing and you're just acting in bad faith to cause frustration on my part.
-
@Mason_Wheeler
I can't believe I'm doing this, but let me quote my entire first paragraph again:It baffles me that you cannot see that a large part of the problem is Google's monopoly, not a particular piece of legislation. Why is it so bad when Google approves removal requests? Why do some people need the RTBF in the first place? (Google bombing, anyone?)
You replied to each of the three sentences in this paragraph individually, which doesn't make any sense. The statement I'm making is that Google's monopoly is a large part of the problem. The following two sentences are justifications for that statement in the form of rhetorical questions.
Please tell me you get it now. You don't have to agree with any of it, just please acknowledge that I didn't ask actual questions, that's all I want.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
You replied to each of the three sentences in this paragraph individually, which doesn't make any sense. The statement I'm making is that Google's monopoly is a large part of the problem.
Which I already dealt with: there is no Google monopoly! A false premise implies anything. Given that the rest of the paragraph rests on this premise, it makes all the sense in the world to deal with it individually!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Given that the rest of the paragraph rests on this premise, it makes all the sense in the world to deal with it individually!
Sorry, just no. @GuyWhoKilledBear is actually making good arguments that I'd love to reply to, but I can't deal with your gibberish in this thread anymore or I'll drink myself into a coma.
I'm out.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
You replied to each of the three sentences in this paragraph individually, which doesn't make any sense. The statement I'm making is that Google's monopoly is a large part of the problem.
Which I already dealt with: there is no Google monopoly! A false premise implies anything. Given that the rest of the paragraph rests on this premise, it makes all the sense in the world to deal with it individually!
When google has appears to have 93% share of the UK search market that seems like a defacto monopoly.
That's relevant because it means there is no commercial incentive for Google to bother fighting spurious take down requests. If a credible competitor did fight tooth-and-nail against every RTBF request then reputational damage to Google would force it's hand. As it is, nothing gets legally test so there is little clear definition of what counts as a legitimate right-to-be-forgotten (and there are many legitimate reasons).
-
@japonicus said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
When google has appears to have 93% share of the UK search market that seems like a defacto monopoly.
A monopoly is when there are no alternatives for the consumer and barriers to competition. (Generally due to overt anticompetitive acts on the part of the monopolist.) Neither of these conditions exist; there's well-established competition that people are actually using, and Google isn't buying them out or driving them out of business. If people are choosing to use Google simply because they have a better product, that's hardly Google's fault, now is it?
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear is actually making good arguments that I'd love to reply to
Come on, be honest here. He's making the same arguments I am! He's just not pwning your bad logic the way I am.
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Google is a group of people. How many people can be in the group before it loses free speech rights?
Dude, it's a basic legal principle. In the eyes of the law there are persons and things. Things can only act through persons. Some things can get additional rights, like a company and other forms of groups recognized by the law at hand. These 'groups' don't have the same rights as people, simply because they are not people.
Basic legal principle? Is Citizens United entitled to free speech and free press rights?
Surely at least The New York Times has those rights, correct? Why them and not Google?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
correct?
No. That's Freedom of Press. Journalists have freedom of speech. They exercise that right through and organized medium.
'The New York Times' doesn't act does it? Persons within the organisation act on behalf of the organization. A journalist can perfectly write an opinion piece arguing A and off the clock adhere an opposite view. Morally challenging but
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Suppose that you did some sort of a petty crime (supermarket theft) in your youth, and you got caught and did your time.
Is it OK that news about that and court documents remain indexed forever and available to everyone on the planet Earth with Internet access, not just to the police and those who need to check your criminal background and who have a legal right and legally prescribed way to make such an inquiry?Nice strawman. In reality, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of RTBF requests are abusive, dealing with the memory-holing of serious crimes, not "petty supermarket theft."
Let's put it this way.
Let's not. Let's put it in reality-based terms, please.
What I don't understand is why anyone would want Google to be a second police database where nothing gets deleted ever and which everyone can query?
If for no other reason, maybe because it makes a good deterrent? If people understand that things they do wrong are not going away, you'll likely end up seeing less petty theft.
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
correct?
No. That's Freedom of Press. Journalists have freedom of speech. They exercise that right through and organized medium.
'The New York Times' doesn't act does it? Persons within the organisation act on behalf of the organization. A journalist can perfectly write an opinion piece arguing A and off the clock adhere an opposite view. Morally challenging butI'm not sure what the first part of this means. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are exactly equivalent, except insofar as Speech deals with expressing content in a transient medium (usually verbally), whereas Press deals with expressing content in a fixed medium (printing a newspaper, recording a TV broadcast for transmission, etc.)
The New York Times has a spokesperson. When they give a press conference about The Times, they're expressing the Times' freedom of speech. Obviously, they express their freedom of the press by writing a newspaper.
It looks to me like you're saying that The Times is supposed to have one right, but not the other. For the life of me, I can't tell which right you think the Times is supposed to have.
Also, please answer for Citizen's United, as well. Since you claim that this groups vs. individuals thing is a "basic legal principle" please explain why the Supreme Court ruled that they have a right to publish political videos unimpeded by the government.
EDIT: To answer your question, it's fair to attribute the actions of people acting on behalf of the organization to the organization. "Journalist X wrote in The Times..." and "The Times wrote..." are equivalent statements.
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Nice strawman. In reality, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of RTBF requests are abusive, dealing with the memory-holing of serious crimes, not "petty supermarket theft."
- Please provide a credible source for your claim that the majority of RTBF requests are malicious.
- Please show how those crimes are hidden from those who need to know about them by delisting news stories from Google?
Let's not. Let's put it in reality-based terms, please.
Reality allows people to be rehabilitated. Your version does not. End of story.
If for no other reason, maybe because it makes a good deterrent? If people understand that things they do wrong are not going away, you'll likely end up seeing less petty theft.
So you personally want all people labeled for their crimes for life, no matter the circumstances, and no matter what the court decided?
Good thing you are not in charge of anything then.
Also, nice skipping over the fact that in reality even courts delete records after a while.
I did not, in fact, say any of these things that you're attributing to me. But good jorb, keep torching those straw men. It's so much easier than actually responding to what I did say, now isn't it?
-
@levicki
Yes, obviously I said the things I actually said. The things you're attributing to me are not that, and all the false equivalence in the world won't change that.Do everyone a favor and quit while you're behind.
-
@levicki Still waiting for examples of my allegedly "wild" claims. So far it's all been easily verifiable facts you can get at with a single
Googlenon-"monopolist" search engine of your choice search.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
If people understand that things they do wrong are not going away, you'll likely end up seeing less petty theft.
I completely disagree with that sentiment, but in any case it misses the point that the GDPR provisions are not just (or evenly mainly) about literal criminality, but a wider legal effort to take steps against deep profiling of the minutiae of your life (all the non-criminal aspects).
Do you want every future employer, romantic partner, banker, policeman etc to know how long you spend on TDWTF (or on less salubrious parts of the internet); that you were a brat in high school; your views on religion; who you retweeted; what fancy dress costume you wore when you were 15; everyone you ever dated; every message board post (classified by subject, emotional intent and literacy level)?
If you found out that someone was compiling such a profile (and maybe selling it) you'd probably want to stop them - to not be 'remembered' in that level of detail.
Many countries have laws against compiling particular forms of employee blacklists (records of union activity etc) but, given modern technical capabilities, the problem now is that a profile of your entire life history could be compiled trivially and completely beyond your control. There is a legal need to be able to constrain that. Some of the GDPR provisions could be seen as an imperfect first attempt.
Masking a few embarrassing google searches is a side-effect (and as has already been noted, predates GDPR anyway).
-
@japonicus said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Do you want every future ... romantic partner
Now that I'm married, I hope to not have any of those. The wife I've got is quite enough for me.
banker, policeman etc to know how long you spend on TDWTF (or on less salubrious parts of the internet);
I'm posting here using my real name. Does that look to you like I want to hide it from anyone?
that you were a brat in high school;
If there are any records of my activities from back then, anyone who finds them is welcome to 'em.
your views on religion;
I spent two years of my life, literally all day every day, actively seeking to share them with anyone who would listen.
who you retweeted;
That would be no one. (And again, I've been quite open with my views on this, under my real name.) Tweeting is for Twits.
what fancy dress costume you wore when you were 15;
There may or may not exist embarrassing pictures of me in my high school's production of Grease that year. If anyone still has any, I'd love to see them!
everyone you ever dated;
What about them? My wife already knows all about the ugly details of my dating history, and I don't really see why it would be particularly interesting to anyone else. (Except the psychotic one, of course. That's definitely an interesting story, and one which I have freely shared with various people.
Including on here.)every message board post (classified by subject, emotional intent and literacy level)?
Ever since high school (at the same time as Internet forums and consumer-grade internet access became a thing) I've been posting under my real name.
If you found out that someone was compiling such a profile (and maybe selling it) you'd probably want to stop them - to not be 'remembered' in that level of detail.
Why?
It's quite simple, really: if you don't want the public to find out about your shameful past, don't do things you'll be ashamed of, particularly not in the public view! You can't scare someone by talking about hypothetical skeletons in their closet when there aren't any skeletons there.
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Ah, the famous "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" argument, often used against privacy advocates.
No, it's the "don't do the crime, period" argument, often used on little children too immature to understand such principles yet. (And occasionally on certain adults who are apparently still too immature to grasp them!)
Ah, the famous "I have nothing to hide" and "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" arguments, often used against privacy advocates.
There's a reason why these arguments are used often. Two, in fact:
- because they're valid
- because they're simple and easy to grasp
