3 ms·
> It seems like you're perfectly content if Googappazon turns around and voluntarily sells "your" data to governments, since you've consented for them to use it
by abritinthebay 11y ago
> It seems like you're perfectly content if Googappazon turns around and voluntarily sells "your" data to governments, since you've consented for them to use it.
Use it under the limited license you agreed to. Not to use it for any purpose at all. This is disingenuous rubbish and you know it.
- mindslight 11y agoI had elaborated why the distinction between the two is but a tiny epsilon in the second paragraph. I removed the second part of the sentence you quoted so perhaps people will continue reading rather than having a knee-jerk. There is no "license" (in the sense of copyright) for the collected data, so there are no builtin penalies for violating the contract. Theoretically a company could commit to $10k in liquidated damages per deliberate privacy violation, but this could be done today so I'll consider it when I actually see such a term in a contract, especially for a free service. Since you think it appropriate to dismiss me as deliberately writing "disingenuous rubbish", I would kindly ask you to elaborate what you believe my motive is for doing so. There is certainly a powerful motive to defend private surveillance companies, even if it's just people wanting to believe in what they're creating.