4 ms·

"users don't get to put a leash on webmasters, it just allows the users to retain some degree of control over what the webmasters are allowed to do" I'll let t

"users don't get to put a leash on webmasters, it just allows the users to retain some degree of control over what the webmasters are allowed to do" I'll let that excerpt speak for itself. And yes, I'm arguing it's anyone's moral right to profit off information voluntarily entered into their website unless a specific agreement was made on the website to the contrary.

GordonS 8y ago
> And yes, I'm arguing it's anyone's moral right to profit off information voluntarily entered into their website unless a specific agreement was made on the website to the contrary Views like this are exactly why we need the GDPR. I find it utterly ridiculous - disgusting even - that you really believe you have the right to do whatever you want with someone else's personal information. When you provide an email address, physical address, name or other PI, it's with the expectation of it being used for a specific purpose - you should absolutely not give you the right to sell that information to the highest bidder.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  And I find it equally disgusting that you think users' feelings are more important than webmasters' property rights.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Holy shit man, did you come right out of "Atlas Shrugged"? This isnt even users feelings, this is data that can a:have monetary value and b:can be plain wrong and damage a user. Do you think that merely by observing data you have right to it? Do you not believe in any IP law? If you agree with any type of IP law then you are just being hypocritical by insisting that webmasters get to take and use whatever data they come across
    - jimmaswell 8y ago
      >Do you think that merely by observing data you have right to it? Yes, with some exceptions for actual copyright and the like. >Do you not believe in any IP law? IP law, yes, but I don't feel a user's entries into a website automatically qualify as IP owned by the user. The terms of many websites actually say that whatever you upload to them is owned by the website, unless a prior IP applied to it. I've only ever heard the claim that your name et al. are your inherent IP from "Sovereign Citizens" before.
      - lovich 8y ago
        IP law is not a natural right. It's been encoded into existence by laws. The GDPR is encoding new rights into law in regard with personal data. I don't see a way to declare one bad and not the other unless you're just saying that new things are bad. Additionally the terms of websites can say whatever they want but it doesn't mean they are legally defensible. I could put into my terms "by finishing this sentence you agree to be enslaved by Lovich LLC" but that doesn't make it happen
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  Why not? I have yet to see anyone arguing for data protection legislation actually give a reason that they think a users data belongs to the user.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I've never heard anyone complaining about it give a reason why they feel that it belongs to them.
  - lagadu 8y ago
    Equifax.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      The Equifax breach was already illegal - I assume you mean you think that websites shouldn't keep user information to prevent future data breaches. This is a bad solution to that problem. So many people's data was stolen that preventing future data from being stolen isn't the most important thing we should be doing. Last I heard it was 150 million people - that's enough that it no longer really matters to the average person if their data is leaked in the future because there's such a high change it already has. The real solution is to change our systems so that data leaks aren't a big deal. If people didn't ask for a 9 digit number to identify me, as if that's a reasonable thing to keep secret, then it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world knew it. That's the problem with data breaches like this. That's what we should be fixing in response to it.
def_true_false 8y ago
A bunch of 3rd party trackers collecting every move you make with your cursor probably won't fit most people's definition of 'voluntarily entered into a website'.

GordonS 8y ago

> And yes, I'm arguing it's anyone's moral right to profit off information voluntarily entered into their website unless a specific agreement was made on the website to the contrary Views like this are exactly why we need the GDPR. I find it utterly ridiculous - disgusting even - that you really believe you have the right to do whatever you want with someone else's personal information. When you provide an email address, physical address, name or other PI, it's with the expectation of it being used for a specific purpose - you should absolutely not give you the right to sell that information to the highest bidder.

jimmaswell 8y ago
And I find it equally disgusting that you think users' feelings are more important than webmasters' property rights.
- lovich 8y ago
  Holy shit man, did you come right out of "Atlas Shrugged"? This isnt even users feelings, this is data that can a:have monetary value and b:can be plain wrong and damage a user. Do you think that merely by observing data you have right to it? Do you not believe in any IP law? If you agree with any type of IP law then you are just being hypocritical by insisting that webmasters get to take and use whatever data they come across
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    >Do you think that merely by observing data you have right to it? Yes, with some exceptions for actual copyright and the like. >Do you not believe in any IP law? IP law, yes, but I don't feel a user's entries into a website automatically qualify as IP owned by the user. The terms of many websites actually say that whatever you upload to them is owned by the website, unless a prior IP applied to it. I've only ever heard the claim that your name et al. are your inherent IP from "Sovereign Citizens" before.
    - lovich 8y ago
      IP law is not a natural right. It's been encoded into existence by laws. The GDPR is encoding new rights into law in regard with personal data. I don't see a way to declare one bad and not the other unless you're just saying that new things are bad. Additionally the terms of websites can say whatever they want but it doesn't mean they are legally defensible. I could put into my terms "by finishing this sentence you agree to be enslaved by Lovich LLC" but that doesn't make it happen
wilsonnb 8y ago
Why not? I have yet to see anyone arguing for data protection legislation actually give a reason that they think a users data belongs to the user.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I've never heard anyone complaining about it give a reason why they feel that it belongs to them.
- lagadu 8y ago
  Equifax.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    The Equifax breach was already illegal - I assume you mean you think that websites shouldn't keep user information to prevent future data breaches. This is a bad solution to that problem. So many people's data was stolen that preventing future data from being stolen isn't the most important thing we should be doing. Last I heard it was 150 million people - that's enough that it no longer really matters to the average person if their data is leaked in the future because there's such a high change it already has. The real solution is to change our systems so that data leaks aren't a big deal. If people didn't ask for a 9 digit number to identify me, as if that's a reasonable thing to keep secret, then it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world knew it. That's the problem with data breaches like this. That's what we should be fixing in response to it.

def_true_false 8y ago

A bunch of 3rd party trackers collecting every move you make with your cursor probably won't fit most people's definition of 'voluntarily entered into a website'.