4 ms·
Plenty of existing laws take intent into consideration so its not unreasonable to suppose that a log that happens to accidentally contain some information that
by thfuran 4y ago
Plenty of existing laws take intent into consideration so its not unreasonable to suppose that a log that happens to accidentally contain some information that it shouldn't before being destroyed and the bug patched would be quite legally distinct from a log containing the same information but has a business unit processing and profiting from it.
- xyzzyz 4y agoIt is not unreasonable, I agree. However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role, and actual interest of the people in balancing their privacy and usability concerns are tertiary at best. The politicians pass those laws to look good on one side, and to attack the companies on the other. User concerns are mostly ignored.
- thfuran 4y ago>However, the privacy laws passed by government are mostly intended to play performative and punitive role Yeah, that seems to pretty well describe most all legislature these days.
- K0SM0S 4y ago> User concerns are mostly ignored. Indeed and I don't see how that changes _structurally_ when people "in the know" are always going to be a tiny minority — they say that about 3% of the population has the profile to work in tech, and I tend to agree anecdotally. I feel it's comparable to the inception of medicine for instance, and the solution was auto-regulation of the field by itself through the application of a loud (public and transparent) set of deontological rules of practice ("Primum non nocere", etc). Awareness of society about these issues re. privacy and information sanctity in a democracy will not come naturally, structurally as time goes by. Just like they don't really know how doctors make life-or-death decisions on the spot. Nevertheless, the right principles should eventually exist, be known, and abode to, by those who work in the field. It should be loud and clear that we all have ethics (rules, implementing guiding principles), and which exactly. A deontology of information technology and its practice in relation to human beings is one big "TODO" of this century, and it should concern anyone even remotely skilled to understand the problem.
- scarface74 4y agoSo what are the chances that a judge cares about “intent” on site that doesn’t conform to their belief system?
- thfuran 4y agoYou're asking what the odds are that a judge will refrain from flagrant malfeasance. I'd imagine it's pretty high, though surely not 100%.
- scarface74 4y agoYou trust the legal system far more than I do.
- thfuran 4y agoSo, what, we shouldn't attempt to have privacy protections because some corrupt judge might fine a company that shouldn't have been fined?
- scarface74 4y agoWe shouldn’t give the government more power for them to abuse…period.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoBetter defacto, unelected governments in the form of huge companies with armies of lobbyists and forced arbitration agreements.
- scarface74 4y agoBecause of how both the electoral college works and gerrymandering, the elected officials don’t represent the majority. Besides, private companies don’t have the force of law to force people to do anything. Giving the government more power over your freedom is never the answer.
- sneak 4y ago...and the national military surveillance operationalizing it. This isn't just about revenue. People are assassinated by the US government without trial based on metadata.
- shadowgovt 4y agoHow much did Google get smacked for for collecting unencrypted packet data while they were building out their SSID-based localization improvements?