5 ms·

> comply with the law What concerns you about this?

by diceduckmonk 4y ago

croes 4y ago
Because they are good laws and bas laws, so some requests shouldn't be given in too easily.
- mulmen 4y ago
  I’m not comfortable living in a world where FB and Google get to decide what laws are worth following.
- yyyk 4y ago
  Who decides which laws are bad?
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    The ideology of the OP usually.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    The courts, and there’s precedent saying a companies can petition the courts to review the law before handing over data. And given Google et.al. actions in other avenues against these laws, it’s sad they aren’t challenging them.
- diceduckmonk 4y ago
  Right, which is your second point about the law existing being the concern. Companies are simply enforcing the law, right or wrong.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Companies should not enforce laws. They should just follow them.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Except in this case, they are doing both. To not do what you're asking (not turn over data on abortion seekers), they would be breaking the law if they received a valid warrant. Now... They could comply with the law by not hoovering up as much data as they do, thereby becoming useless to both advertiser and law enforcement alike.... But that jeopardizes their business model.
      - candiodari 4y ago
        No they couldn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://edri.org/our-work/a-beginners-guide-to-eu-rules-on-scanning-private-communications-part-2/ https://edri.org/our-work/a-beginners-guide-to-eu-rules-on-s... The companies profit from this data, but at this point they no longer have a choice: they have to collect the data or stop offering services in a lot of geographical areas. The point that they can avoid it by not collecting it was valid some 15 years ago, but no longer. One of the main objections of companies is, by the way, that most governments refuse to pay the sometimes extensive development and infrastructure costs for this, instead just threatening the companies with (often illegal) measure to force their compliance.
      - madeofpalk 4y ago
        Turning over data as required by law/warrant is not enforcing a law. It's following the law.
    - candiodari 4y ago
      Companies don't get a choice. The "out" some companies are using is to encrypt everything with keys only on the customer's device. They then provide all data they have, as ordered, on request. This, of course, does not include the encryption key. However, as far as I know essentially only Signal does it these days. Whatsapp is famous for doing this before, and then Facebook killing this for "regulatory concerns". I don't know for sure, but the previous owner of Whatsapp and founder of Signal implied that Facebook got threatened by states into doing that. But FB/Google/Amazon/... are the tip of the iceberg. The companies really used for "enforcing the laws" (and for using very harsh measures against individuals just to make some government department's job a little bit easier) are banks. https://www.taxsamaritan.com/tax-article-blog/reasons-the-irs-could-freeze-your-assets/ https://www.taxsamaritan.com/tax-article-blog/reasons-the-ir... (note the wording here: "the IRS has full authority to". They can do this at will. This process has been used to cause problems for political opponents as well. Nobody seems to care)
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    There is no inherent moral good in enforcing the law. Enforcing a morally evil law is morally evil.
    - inspicouss 4y ago
      The second part is true, the first part not so much. Enforcing the law creates stability, which is a good trait in and of itself, (all things considered equal otherwise about the law in question) You have some arguments for that I'm not aware of perhaps?
      - justinclift 4y ago
        > Enforcing the law creates stability ... Do no obvious counter-examples spring to mind for you regarding that? ;)
mulmen 4y ago
The only concerning thing to me is when tech companies volunteer information to LEO. They should at least demand a warrant.
fluxinflex 4y ago
First came the data, then came the law. That is the problem: we have nothing to hide until someone changes the law. Suddenly those things that were legal yesterday become the crimes of today.
- diceduckmonk 4y ago
  Are laws being retroactively applied or since the date the law came into effect, plus some grace period ?
  - fluxinflex 4y ago
    The data was generated, the law changed and law enforcement asked for all user data. There is nothing retroactive here. There is no respect for the context in which the data was generated.
    - dspillett 4y ago
      From the point of view of the company for who it is just a pot of data with no context until analysed, maybe. It will sure seem retroactive to someone who might have acted differently so the data wouldn't be available to be handed over, if the current laws were in action at the point they could have done something to avoid the data being collected¹². -- [1] "Generated" is too benign a word here IMO, hence using "collected" instead [2] "inferred" might be a better choice as the data could be incorrect³ but that still seems to imply less agency than the companies have in their very deliberate stalky behaviour [3] so something made up, not a truth collected
      - fluxinflex 4y ago
        I used "generated" viewed from the user, "collected" would be from the perspective of the company. I wonder whether there is a legal difference in the case of law changes, which date would be taken? The classic form of retroactive application of laws would be if someone performed an action, the law was backdated so that action becomes illegal and the performer becomes a criminal. In this case we're talking not about direct action as the action is implied via the data collected. So if the action was performed before the backdating of the law but the data was collected after the backdating, is the performer a criminal? So from the data, an action is "inferred".
psychoslave 4y ago
Nothing really. Here is the list of this ethnic people you want to eliminate in conformance with the law you just passed on mandatory abortion and sterilization, oh my great overlord. Congratulations for your successful putsch by the way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

> comply with the law What concerns you about this?

croes 4y ago

Because they are good laws and bas laws, so some requests shouldn't be given in too easily.

mulmen 4y ago
I’m not comfortable living in a world where FB and Google get to decide what laws are worth following.
yyyk 4y ago
Who decides which laws are bad?
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  The ideology of the OP usually.
- falcolas 4y ago
  The courts, and there’s precedent saying a companies can petition the courts to review the law before handing over data. And given Google et.al. actions in other avenues against these laws, it’s sad they aren’t challenging them.
diceduckmonk 4y ago
Right, which is your second point about the law existing being the concern. Companies are simply enforcing the law, right or wrong.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Companies should not enforce laws. They should just follow them.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Except in this case, they are doing both. To not do what you're asking (not turn over data on abortion seekers), they would be breaking the law if they received a valid warrant. Now... They could comply with the law by not hoovering up as much data as they do, thereby becoming useless to both advertiser and law enforcement alike.... But that jeopardizes their business model.
    - candiodari 4y ago
      No they couldn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://edri.org/our-work/a-beginners-guide-to-eu-rules-on-scanning-private-communications-part-2/ https://edri.org/our-work/a-beginners-guide-to-eu-rules-on-s... The companies profit from this data, but at this point they no longer have a choice: they have to collect the data or stop offering services in a lot of geographical areas. The point that they can avoid it by not collecting it was valid some 15 years ago, but no longer. One of the main objections of companies is, by the way, that most governments refuse to pay the sometimes extensive development and infrastructure costs for this, instead just threatening the companies with (often illegal) measure to force their compliance.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Turning over data as required by law/warrant is not enforcing a law. It's following the law.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    Companies don't get a choice. The "out" some companies are using is to encrypt everything with keys only on the customer's device. They then provide all data they have, as ordered, on request. This, of course, does not include the encryption key. However, as far as I know essentially only Signal does it these days. Whatsapp is famous for doing this before, and then Facebook killing this for "regulatory concerns". I don't know for sure, but the previous owner of Whatsapp and founder of Signal implied that Facebook got threatened by states into doing that. But FB/Google/Amazon/... are the tip of the iceberg. The companies really used for "enforcing the laws" (and for using very harsh measures against individuals just to make some government department's job a little bit easier) are banks. https://www.taxsamaritan.com/tax-article-blog/reasons-the-irs-could-freeze-your-assets/ https://www.taxsamaritan.com/tax-article-blog/reasons-the-ir... (note the wording here: "the IRS has full authority to". They can do this at will. This process has been used to cause problems for political opponents as well. Nobody seems to care)
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  There is no inherent moral good in enforcing the law. Enforcing a morally evil law is morally evil.
  - inspicouss 4y ago
    The second part is true, the first part not so much. Enforcing the law creates stability, which is a good trait in and of itself, (all things considered equal otherwise about the law in question) You have some arguments for that I'm not aware of perhaps?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > Enforcing the law creates stability ... Do no obvious counter-examples spring to mind for you regarding that? ;)

mulmen 4y ago

The only concerning thing to me is when tech companies volunteer information to LEO. They should at least demand a warrant.

fluxinflex 4y ago

First came the data, then came the law. That is the problem: we have nothing to hide until someone changes the law. Suddenly those things that were legal yesterday become the crimes of today.

diceduckmonk 4y ago
Are laws being retroactively applied or since the date the law came into effect, plus some grace period ?
- fluxinflex 4y ago
  The data was generated, the law changed and law enforcement asked for all user data. There is nothing retroactive here. There is no respect for the context in which the data was generated.
  - dspillett 4y ago
    From the point of view of the company for who it is just a pot of data with no context until analysed, maybe. It will sure seem retroactive to someone who might have acted differently so the data wouldn't be available to be handed over, if the current laws were in action at the point they could have done something to avoid the data being collected¹². -- [1] "Generated" is too benign a word here IMO, hence using "collected" instead [2] "inferred" might be a better choice as the data could be incorrect³ but that still seems to imply less agency than the companies have in their very deliberate stalky behaviour [3] so something made up, not a truth collected
    - fluxinflex 4y ago
      I used "generated" viewed from the user, "collected" would be from the perspective of the company. I wonder whether there is a legal difference in the case of law changes, which date would be taken? The classic form of retroactive application of laws would be if someone performed an action, the law was backdated so that action becomes illegal and the performer becomes a criminal. In this case we're talking not about direct action as the action is implied via the data collected. So if the action was performed before the backdating of the law but the data was collected after the backdating, is the performer a criminal? So from the data, an action is "inferred".

psychoslave 4y ago

Nothing really. Here is the list of this ethnic people you want to eliminate in conformance with the law you just passed on mandatory abortion and sterilization, oh my great overlord. Congratulations for your successful putsch by the way.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]