The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread
-
@levicki
They don't imply any of the above. Claiming that they do puts you right on the border of TDEMSYR territory.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
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.
Not everybody is St. Mason and has never done anything wrong in their life, or skipped being a teenager, and they don’t have a time machine to prevent it now that they’ve read your advice.
Didn’t you talk about Chilling Effects earlier? What is the effect going to be when nobody dares to go / speak out in public anymore because every single step will be recorded for all eternity.
-
@topspin Actual precedents have been rare, but from what few we have, history strongly suggests that when people know they aren't going to get away with committing crimes, the effect is peace, prosperity, and a society free from crime and the fear thereof.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin Actual precedents have been rare, but from what few we have, history strongly suggests that the effect is peace, prosperity, and a society free from crime and the fear thereof.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about China or 1984.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Didn’t you talk about Chilling Effects earlier? What is the effect going to be when nobody dares to go / speak out in public anymore because every single step will be recorded for all eternity.
That’s already the state we’re in. Obviously most people don’t care.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@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
Oh wait, the thread has already been Godwin’d, right?
I wonder what the Jews would’ve thought about your “if you got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” argument. Should’ve heeded your “don’t do the crime” advice.
-
@topspin And what crime did the German Jews commit, exactly?
And before you give the obvious answer, let me skip straight to the punch line: the very fact that you're able to have this conversation with me proves that neither of us is living in a fascist dictatorship, because that's the first thing actual fascist dictators crack down on. Therefore, comparisons to the same are invalid and just make you look like a derp.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin And what crime did the German Jews commit, exactly?
None. That’s the fucking point of why “If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” is an incredible terrible argument.
And before you give the obvious answer, let me skip straight to the punch line: the very fact that you're able to have this conversation with me proves that neither of us is living in a fascist dictatorship,
And yet you’re giving the talking points of an authoritarian surveillance state.
because that's the first thing actual fascist dictators crack down on. Therefore, comparisons to the same are invalid and just make you look like a derp.
Not as derp as defending their principles on the grounds that they’re unproblematic if you don’t live in a fascist state.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
And yet you’re giving the talking points of an authoritarian surveillance state.
...says the one arguing in favor of the state passing laws to enable censorship of inconvenient facts. I mean, that's rewriting history directly out of 1984, for heaven's sake!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
And yet you’re giving the talking points of an authoritarian surveillance state.
...says the one arguing in favor of the state passing laws to enable censorship of inconvenient facts. I mean, that's rewriting history directly out of 1984, for heaven's sake!
I see you're talking to your shoulder aliens again.
-
@topspin Are you claiming now that you're not in favor of the RTBF, then? Because you totally were this morning!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin Are you claiming now that you're not in favor of the RTBF, then? Because you totally were this morning!
- I am in favor of the GDPR
- I explained to you that the two are not the same
- I also explained to you the rationale behind the RTBF
- All of your claims what the RTBF are about turned out to be made up
- The RTBF isn't rewriting history, so that's moot
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin Are you claiming now that you're not in favor of the RTBF, then? Because you totally were this morning!
- I am in favor of the GDPR
- I explained to you that the two are not the same
No, you explained that the RTBF existed before the GDPR. This is true. It's also irrelevant, as it got incorporated into the GDPR. Therefore, if you're in favor of the GDPR in its current form, you are necessarily in favor of the RTBF.
- I also explained to you the rationale behind the RTBF
Yes: to remove evidence of past misdeeds that someone arbitrarily decides is "no longer relevant" once they've reformed. And I pointed out that that sounds nice in theory, but in reality it's overwhelmingly abused to cover up serious crimes instead. Why are we going over this again?
- All of your claims what the RTBF are about turned out to be made up
Objection, asserts facts not in evidence. (Heck, I'm the only one who's been backing up my claims with facts at all; all I get from you is indignant assertions that the hard evidence I'm sharing is (somehow!) totally not the way any of it works.)
- The RTBF isn't rewriting history, so that's moot
What do you call erasing facts from the historical record with the express intent of hiding them from public view? If that doesn't count as rewriting history, what does
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin Are you claiming now that you're not in favor of the RTBF, then? Because you totally were this morning!
- I am in favor of the GDPR
- I explained to you that the two are not the same
No, you explained that the RTBF existed before the GDPR. This is true. It's also irrelevant, as it got incorporated into the GDPR. Therefore, if you're in favor of the GDPR in its current form, you are necessarily in favor of the RTBF.
- I also explained to you the rationale behind the RTBF
Yes: to remove evidence of past misdeeds that someone arbitrarily decides is "no longer relevant" once they've reformed. And I pointed out that that sounds nice in theory, but in reality it's overwhelmingly abused to cover up serious crimes instead. Why are we going over this again?
- All of your claims what the RTBF are about turned out to be made up
Objection, asserts facts not in evidence. (Heck, I'm the only one who's been backing up my claims with facts at all; all I get from you is indignant assertions that the hard evidence I'm sharing is (somehow!) totally not the way any of it works.)
You have been asked several times to provide a citation for your claim that "the overwhelming majority of RTBF requests are abusive". And you call ignoring that "backing up your claims".
- The RTBF isn't rewriting history, so that's moot
What do you call erasing facts from the historical record with the express intent of hiding them from public view? If that doesn't count as rewriting history, what does
It doesn't get erased.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
You have been asked several times to provide a citation for your claim that "the overwhelming majority of RTBF requests are abusive". And you call ignoring that "backing up your claims".
As I've said, this is easily findable with a single web search. There is no surer sign of an obstructive troll arguing in bad faith than demanding evidence of that which is common knowledge.
- The RTBF isn't rewriting history, so that's moot
What do you call erasing facts from the historical record with the express intent of hiding them from public view? If that doesn't count as rewriting history, what does
It doesn't get erased.
Once again, when it is removed from the place where knowledge is commonly found, there's very little difference. If something isn't technically erased but you still can't find it, the result is the same: you don't see it. So stop splitting hairs; it's effectively erasure and everyone knows it.
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Or are you arguing that everyone should have access to such information?
YES!
Facts are facts. I'm all for deleting defamation, but true facts shouldn't be covered up without an exceptionally compelling reason, such as "if this information gets out, people will die."
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
You have been asked several times to provide a citation for your claim that "the overwhelming majority of RTBF requests are abusive". And you call ignoring that "backing up your claims".
As I've said, this is easily findable with a single web search. There is no surer sign of an obstructive troll arguing in bad faith than demanding evidence of that which is common knowledge.
There is no surer sign that you’ve made it up than the claim that it’s common knowledge while adamantly refusing to actually back it up.
- The RTBF isn't rewriting history, so that's moot
What do you call erasing facts from the historical record with the express intent of hiding them from public view? If that doesn't count as rewriting history, what does
It doesn't get erased.
Once again, when it is removed from the place where knowledge is commonly found, there's very little difference. If something isn't technically erased but you still can't find it, the result is the same: you don't see it. So stop splitting hairs; it's effectively erasure and everyone knows it.
It doesn’t get shoved in your nose when you were looking for something completely unrelated. That’s the point. If you’re looking for it, you can find it.
Not everybody who’s looking for Mason Wheeler’s phone number needs to know about his dumb arguments for surveillance talking points, but they can still find it if they want to.
-
Second clear sign of obstructive trolls arguing in bad faith: when presented with the solid evidence they demanded, which they already knew about already because it's common knowledge, they will contort themselves in 7 different kinds of mental gymnastic knots trying to explain it away.
I wonder which lame excuses will be deployed against this one?
Google search results may indicate 'right to be forgotten' censorship
Search engine considering alert at bottom of results pages to show links have been removed after landmark EU privacy ruling
Google said last Monday that it had so far received 41,000 requests to take down sensitive material from people in Europe since the landmark ruling, including a politician with a murky past, a convicted paedophile and a man who had attempted to murder his family and wanted to remove links about his crime. Google chief executive Larry Page has said that nearly a third of the 41,000 requests received related to a fraud or scram, one fifth concerned serious crime, and 12% are connected to child pornography arrests.
1/3 + 1/5 + 12% ~= 2/3 of RTBF requests being used to cover up serious crimes.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Mind you, those are the incoming requests. Further down in the article: (emphasis mine)
The search company, which launched an online form two weeks ago for people wanting to airbrush material about their past, does not have to comply with every request, but must consider whether removing information is in the public interest.
Google has set up an advisory committee to issue recommendations about where the boundaries of the public interest lie in the requests, made up of seven people including its executive chairman Eric Schmidt and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
Wales has described the ECJ ruling as censorship and raised concerns that news organisations would be particularly affected because Google is the primary source through which internet users find information. In an interview with the technology site TechCrunch on this weekend, Wales said: "I think the decision will have no impact on people's right to privacy, because I don't regard truthful information in court records published by court order in a newspaper to be private information. If anything, the decision is likely to simply muddle the interesting philosophical questions and make it more difficult to make real progress on privacy issues.
"In the case of truthful, non-defamatory information obtained legally, I think there is no possibility of any defensible 'right' to censor what other people are saying."
Because the article is older than the effictive date of the GDPR, this article doesn't really explain the effect of the new regulations...
Digging through https://transparencyreport.google.com/ might have up-to-date numbers, but
for now.
-
@JBert Yes, I see the emphasis. As I've already pointed out, that looks good theoretically but doesn't really mean much. See above, re: all the incentives being stacked in favor of censorship and nobody having the resources to fight that many lawsuits if they refuse, even if they're legally in the right to do so.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Mason_Wheeler I did read something interesting on the BBC News site yesterday:
Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case
A privacy regulator had sought to force firm to delist links across the world and not just Europe.
So the ECJ does seem to agree that upholding the law outside of the EU might be a little hard for them...
More details can likely be found in the court ruling, but I'm on mobile so still
-
@JBert said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Digging through https://transparencyreport.google.com/ might have up-to-date numbers, but for now.
Worth reading. Was surprised that Google does actually deny half (54%) of RTBF requests.
Contrary to some of the assertions in this thread, only 6.4% of requests relate to crime (but add to that 6.3% for 'professional wrongdoing').
Google lists a large number of examples of how how requests are dealt with - most look sensible. Some of the criminality that's covered is a bit disturbing, but is handled in a way that appears consistent with spent-conviction rules (which makes sense).
-
@JBert said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler I did read something interesting on the BBC News site yesterday:
Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case
A privacy regulator had sought to force firm to delist links across the world and not just Europe.
So the ECJ does seem to agree that upholding the law outside of the EU might be a little hard for them...
More details can likely be found in the court ruling, but I'm on mobile so still
Huh. Well that's some unexpected good news. Thanks for sharing!
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are exactly equivalent,
No. This been covered. We are talking about GDPR. A EU directive. So European concepts apply.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
please answer for Citizen's United
No. That is a US political thing. I have no interest in chasing your ghosts.
It hasn't been "covered." You asserted that it's a "basic legal principle" that groups of people lose their rights by virtue of acting in concert. I cited an American court case that explains the American view on this. (Also, at one point, you called Europeans "they," so I assumed you were also an American.)
I'm interested in your understanding of this, so let's actually cover it. Do you have something I can read or search for that explains this distinction between individuals and "things" (which are really groups of people?)
I'm really interested in whether you think companies that print newspapers aren't entitled to freedom of the press.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I assumed you were also an American.
No, he's our resident B*****n or, as we occasionally call him, the Belch.
-
A good example of why you may want to ask a company to remove your personal data:
Search engine for Japanese sex hotels announces security breach
The 2010s decade ends with a major security breach at a search engine for finding love hotels across Japan.
According to Almex, the type of data that hackers might have accessed includes details such as real names, email addresses, login credentials (usernames and passwords), birth dates, gender information, phone numbers, home addresses, and payment card details.
-
If they provided this information to the site willingly, it's now a legitimate business record. (Albeit of a rather sketchy business.)
Also, Japan != EU.
-
It's not a hotel. It's a hotel search engine.
Also, it's something that could have happened anywhere in the world.
-
-
Fixed.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel....an homage to grammar.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
There may or may not exist embarrassing pictures of me in my high school's production of Grease that year.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.The H is silent, and the O is a vowel? Like in an hour.
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler There is a case of a British 19 year old girl who was raped by 12 Israeli men in a Cyprus hotel. She was questioned by police for 9 hours without a lawyer and intimidated into signing a retraction then later put in jail for public mischief and is awaiting trial. She has bruises all over which were dismissed as "bumping into furniture". She can end up serving a year in jail if her appeal is rejected.
The woman had initially accused 12 people of taking part in the alleged gang rape but five were released without charge on Thursday when no DNA was found to link them to the incident at the Pambos Napa hotel in Ayia Napa.
The remaining seven accused were due to be released 'within the day,' police sources told Reuters.
Not to mention that her name was omitted from the news reports, as is standard for rape accusations (real or fake)
-
@PleegWat said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.The H is silent, and the O is a vowel? Like in an hour.
Not in hotel though
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.It depends on the pronunciation of the following word, nothing else. Yes, this means that there words where the correct preceding indefinite article in "a" for some people and "an" for others.
-
@dkf said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
"a" for some people and "an" for others.
People who drop their Hs really should pick them up. They're making a mess of English.
Filed under: INB4 "It already is."
-
@hungrier said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@PleegWat said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.The H is silent, and the O is a vowel? Like in an hour.
Not in hotel though
It is if you’re
-
The Garage is
.
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
It is if you’re
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are exactly equivalent,
No. This been covered. We are talking about GDPR. A EU directive. So European concepts apply.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
please answer for Citizen's United
Did you actually looked into it yourself or are you just paroting? I don't think it supports your case as you seem to think.
- It's clearly a controversial decision because it defines some basic interpretations within US Law.
- "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." So they talk about citizens in associations. The citizens in the associations have rights. Rights that can not be limited because the acts are stated through an association. The court then pulls further that this means that these rights are executed by these associations and should considered free speech.
- I find it rather funny that you reference this case, a marvel of USA lawman ship and doing the right thing as a politician.
Touché, the court decides that associations have freedom of speech. But ... The reason this clarification case was there in the first place was because lawmakers clearly didn't regard associations as having these rights in the first place. So my statement still stands, this is a rather universal distinction in western law. So fundamentally that only the US Supreme Court can overturn it with a turd.
So, great I again learned some more about the shittiness of the USA political system then I cared about.
so I assumed you were also an American.
My location is in my bio. I swear it's such a common joke around here that I fail to mention my nationality. B******m-it
I'm really interested in whether you think companies that print newspapers aren't entitled to freedom of the press.
you really should get those shoulder aliens checked out ... that can't be healthy.
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
The citizens in the associations have rights. Rights that can not be limited because the acts are stated through an association.I'm with you so far...
The court then pulls further that this means that these rights are executed by these associations and should considered free speech... Touché, the court decides that associations have freedom of speech.
Yeah, exactly. Groups of people don't lose their rights just by virtue of acting in a group. I don't see any difference between the first quote and the second. (And neither does American law, by the way, which is why I brought up this case.
The reason this clarification case was there in the first place was because lawmakers clearly didn't regard associations as having these rights in the first place.
Reducto ad lex is a dopey argument, especially when the thing you're appealing to isn't actually lex. The US has some pretty dopey lawmakers that are fine with infringing on people's rights. Based on this topic, I doubt that B*****m is any different.
So my statement still stands, this is a rather universal distinction in western law.
So universal that you still haven't given an example of it working that way anywhere in the world.
I'm really interested in whether you think companies that print newspapers aren't entitled to freedom of the press.
you really should get those shoulder aliens checked out ... that can't be healthy.
Shoulder aliens didn't write
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Journalists have freedom of speech. They exercise that right through and organized medium.
'The New York Times' doesn't act does it?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Shoulder aliens didn't write
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:Journalists have freedom of speech. They exercise that right through and organized medium.
'The New York Times' doesn't act does it?Read that quote again. It says freedom of speech doesn't it?
I can't help it if you can't differentiate between freedom of speech and freedom of press.
-
@Luhmann Can't you? Other than the mode of expression, how are they different?
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
the translation process was a bit rushed and less careful than one might wish.
They were already doing Agile back then?!
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
But thankfully we live in a secular state where the law of the land is not determined by archaic texts.
In the list of statutes still in force in England there is one particular gem commonly known as Quia Emptores. It deals with some slightly technical aspects of land transfer, and a "classical" feudal system is impossible in its presence because it prohibits the practice of "subinfeudation".
It was passed by Parliament in 1290, and the original text is in mediaeval Latin. Is that archaic enough for you?
-
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@hungrier said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@PleegWat said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.The H is silent, and the O is a vowel? Like in an hour.
Not in hotel though
It is if you’re
Beware of the slightly off-topic point that the letter "h" at the beginning of a word in
can function as either a silent vowel or a silent consonant. L'hôtel (the hotel) but le héros (the hero).
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@topspin said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@hungrier said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@PleegWat said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Zerosquare Thanks, edited. Also,
an hotel
H is not a vowel.The H is silent, and the O is a vowel? Like in an hour.
Not in hotel though
It is if you’re
Beware of the slightly off-topic point that the letter "h" at the beginning of a word in
can function as either a silent vowel or a silent consonant. L'hôtel (the hotel) but le héros (the hero).Yet another reason why the EU doesn't get to have universal jurisdiction.
-
I forked out the "serious crimes" stuff because it was getting pretty rank. It's in the garage, out of public view now. I probably missed some posts because other stuff was going on. And maybe I got a few that I shouldn't have.
Let's just move on, please.
