3 ms·
sure, but it’s essentially a social/legal problem, not a technical one. the onus is on the company holding data to show the chain of consent, which doesn’t requ
by clairity 5y ago
sure, but it’s essentially a social/legal problem, not a technical one. the onus is on the company holding data to show the chain of consent, which doesn’t require anything fancy outside a purpose-built database.
- amelius 5y agoSo how does that work then? How does Google prove that I clicked that accept-EULA button? Or that I approve of them keeping track of my information? I never put my signature anywhere and still there are companies holding or even trading my information. > it’s essentially a social/legal problem, not a technical one And ironically, it's the tech companies who are getting away with it.
- clairity 5y agoright, that’s the social/legal problem, that consent is assumed, and i’d argue, coerced. bundling like this is actually an anti-trust concern, because it’s using power in one market (for instance, search) to exert control in another (data brokerage), but we’ve collectively lost sight of this being a problem. but yes, they should be required to get your unambiguous consent for data sharing separate from any other transaction, otherwise it shouldn’t be considered consent.
- Xelynega 5y agoFor software that doesn't require you to click a EULA button or change a value in a EULA file to acknowledge you agree to the EULA, they can just make it part of the Terms Of Service that you inherently agree to by using their software/service.