3 ms·

I wonder how this will jive with GDPR/CCPA right to be forgotten laws. If a person has the right to be forgotten, I can't imagine that this decision will be al

I wonder how this will jive with GDPR/CCPA right to be forgotten laws. If a person has the right to be forgotten, I can't imagine that this decision will be allowed to continue for so long. Does the person have to ask for their information to be deleted under these laws? If so, this might be an additional avenue or good next step for protection laws.

adolph 6y ago
Non-EU data processors are subject to the GDPR if their business customer (data controller) is, according to the triggers mentioned above. To give an example: an online retailer based in the US advertises its products at Google AdWords and targets consumers in the EU and therefore falls within the scope of the GDPR. If the retailer uses the services of a cloud provider to manage its EU customer information, hosting of such data in the cloud will also trigger applicability of the GDPR. The cloud vendor must comply with the (limited) GDPR obligations for data processors. https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/applicability-of-the-eu-gdpr-to-non-eu-companies/ https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/applicability-of-the-... No. The CCPA does not apply to nonprofit organizations or government agencies. https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
gorkish 6y ago
I really fail to see how these laws should or could realistically apply to information that is published publicly. It's reasonable to expect they have something to say about the expectations and rights that a user of a platform ought to be entitled to in their interaction with that platform. However it's rather another thing to follow that this permission should extend to anybody who legally can copy or retain that information under the tenants of fair use or first sale doctrine. This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier work in perpetuity. That is an absolutely ludicrous notion.
- ivan_gammel 6y ago
  >This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier work in perpetuity No, it is not the same. An author of a published book has intention to share it with the public and understands how the system works: you would not expect from this person to make any assumptions about the right to recall all the copies. An author of a post in social media may not recognize the fact, that the actual audience is beyond what he or she expected and that he or she is not in control of the access to this publication. The intentions and expectations are very different, and it is not the fault of social media users that they did not understand how to protect their privacy when living the digital life. The example with "public forum" is a good one here, because speaking in public offline (e.g. having a conversation with friends or addressing a crowd) does not imply that the exact words or other details will be remembered and recorded, on the contrary, without special effort taken by participants any conversation is not recorded by default. That said, even if they are formally in their right and logically it makes sense that whatever is posted with public visibility should be expected to be copied and backed up, those archives are still attacking the privacy and should be regulated by law. There's much more public interest in that than in preserving some tweets, because they may appear important for history. After all, we spent thousands of years without recorded evidence of what people talked about and we are doing just fine.
  - gorkish 6y ago
    > An author of a post in social media may not recognize the fact, that the actual audience is beyond what he or she expected and that he or she is not in control of the access to this publication. I agree with you wholeheartedly were we discussing Facebook or any number of platforms that give the user the ability to restrict the audience to something that is not-quite-public and not-quite-private. However outside of DMs everything on Twitter is explicitly public. I see the point of desiring some ability to have an "open but private" conversation online, but again I really don't think it applies to Twitter as it currently exists. There are a lot of inequivalences when trying to apply the aspects you describe from the real world onto the online forum, not the least of which is the expectation of privacy when posting a public tweet has been explicitly waived. Should something like this exist? Sure, why not? For many of us oldschool geeks, IRC was kind of like this, but modern replacements like Discord and Slack take a completely contrarian view and probably couldn't succeed otherwise. Humans are still very much in the infancy of what it means to extend society into cyberspace, and the end result is increasingly looking like it's not going to be the way any of us pictured it.

adolph 6y ago

Non-EU data processors are subject to the GDPR if their business customer (data controller) is, according to the triggers mentioned above. To give an example: an online retailer based in the US advertises its products at Google AdWords and targets consumers in the EU and therefore falls within the scope of the GDPR. If the retailer uses the services of a cloud provider to manage its EU customer information, hosting of such data in the cloud will also trigger applicability of the GDPR. The cloud vendor must comply with the (limited) GDPR obligations for data processors. https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/applicability-of-the-eu-gdpr-to-non-eu-companies/ https://www.eu-rep.global/blog/article/applicability-of-the-... No. The CCPA does not apply to nonprofit organizations or government agencies. https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa

gorkish 6y ago

I really fail to see how these laws should or could realistically apply to information that is published publicly. It's reasonable to expect they have something to say about the expectations and rights that a user of a platform ought to be entitled to in their interaction with that platform. However it's rather another thing to follow that this permission should extend to anybody who legally can copy or retain that information under the tenants of fair use or first sale doctrine. This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier work in perpetuity. That is an absolutely ludicrous notion.

ivan_gammel 6y ago
>This is akin to saying that an author could reasonably "unpublish" an article or a book because they somehow retain the ability to control dissemination of every copy of thier work in perpetuity No, it is not the same. An author of a published book has intention to share it with the public and understands how the system works: you would not expect from this person to make any assumptions about the right to recall all the copies. An author of a post in social media may not recognize the fact, that the actual audience is beyond what he or she expected and that he or she is not in control of the access to this publication. The intentions and expectations are very different, and it is not the fault of social media users that they did not understand how to protect their privacy when living the digital life. The example with "public forum" is a good one here, because speaking in public offline (e.g. having a conversation with friends or addressing a crowd) does not imply that the exact words or other details will be remembered and recorded, on the contrary, without special effort taken by participants any conversation is not recorded by default. That said, even if they are formally in their right and logically it makes sense that whatever is posted with public visibility should be expected to be copied and backed up, those archives are still attacking the privacy and should be regulated by law. There's much more public interest in that than in preserving some tweets, because they may appear important for history. After all, we spent thousands of years without recorded evidence of what people talked about and we are doing just fine.
- gorkish 6y ago
  > An author of a post in social media may not recognize the fact, that the actual audience is beyond what he or she expected and that he or she is not in control of the access to this publication. I agree with you wholeheartedly were we discussing Facebook or any number of platforms that give the user the ability to restrict the audience to something that is not-quite-public and not-quite-private. However outside of DMs everything on Twitter is explicitly public. I see the point of desiring some ability to have an "open but private" conversation online, but again I really don't think it applies to Twitter as it currently exists. There are a lot of inequivalences when trying to apply the aspects you describe from the real world onto the online forum, not the least of which is the expectation of privacy when posting a public tweet has been explicitly waived. Should something like this exist? Sure, why not? For many of us oldschool geeks, IRC was kind of like this, but modern replacements like Discord and Slack take a completely contrarian view and probably couldn't succeed otherwise. Humans are still very much in the infancy of what it means to extend society into cyberspace, and the end result is increasingly looking like it's not going to be the way any of us pictured it.