3 ms·
That's because there isn't anything wrong with this. It's anonymous, it's completely untraceable back to the 53 people. If this is seriously something people ha
by simonswords82 9y ago
That's because there isn't anything wrong with this. It's anonymous, it's completely untraceable back to the 53 people. If this is seriously something people have time to freak out about, they have too much spare time on their hands.
- kuschku 9y agoPeople hate surveillance. They accept it as trade off, but you shouldn't remind them of it. And I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong.
- simonswords82 9y agoI'm sure it's more a of case of needing the data for business purposes (such as paying copyright holders) than a matter of "surveillance".
- kuschku 9y agoThat's the same, though. Surveillance is only defined by collecting the data — not necessarily by how you use it. But the data still exists, and as in this case, can still be used. And apparently, Netflix rules on how to access or use it aren't particularly strict either.
- mcphage 9y ago> I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong Without this data they can't tell what's worth making and what's not worth making.
- icebraining 9y agoAnd yet TV shows got made before the pervasive surveillance age. I'm not particularly aghast that they keep this data, but I can't agree that they need it.