3 ms·

But those companies would say they do have your permission. Because users explicitly click on the Agree button when they signup.

cma 3y ago
It is crazy the level of care we have in wiretapping laws for domestic phone calls, while almost nothing for digital communication if the company volunteers it.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Yeah, the third party doctrine is complete crap in the modern era. At the very least, what constitutes voluntarily turning over information to a third party needs to be far more narrowly defined, but I think the entire premise is a bit shaky.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  It actually seems understandable to me. Many politicians in the US are former lawyers, judges, etc. They could easily have learned lessons of how much privacy protections can get in the way of "real" investigations. They're also part of a government that has been handed more and more power for the better part of 60 years, privacy laws are a problem if your honest view is that the government is there to protect us by whatever means are necessary.
kergonath 3y ago
These terms should be null and void. You cannot give informed consent as you have no clue what could happen in the future. Consent should be given on a case by case basis. Also, not hidden in 100 pages long EULAs that you have to agree to in block in order to do anything. There cannot be informed consent with coercion and deception either. Personal data are as private as medical records.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  This is why the GDPR demands explicit consent in many cases (even though many companies don't follow the law, unfortunately). The EULA is not a defence for a lot of data sharing anymore. In my opinion, the USA deserves a similar law to protect its citizens from this type of crap. Unfortunately, privacy protection doesn't seem to be a very popular topic in American politics.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  > You cannot give informed consent as you have no clue what could happen in the future That view would completely void any possibility of giving consent to anything, ever. The same logic could be used after the fact to sue your doctors for example. "Sure I signed something, but that couldn't have been informed consent when I didn't yet know that the operation was going to go poorly."
heavyset_go 3y ago
In this case, explicit would be asking users if specific named datum can be shared with specific named parties each time there is a data request, just like you're explicitly asked to send specific emails you write before they're sent.

cma 3y ago

It is crazy the level of care we have in wiretapping laws for domestic phone calls, while almost nothing for digital communication if the company volunteers it.

thfuran 3y ago
Yeah, the third party doctrine is complete crap in the modern era. At the very least, what constitutes voluntarily turning over information to a third party needs to be far more narrowly defined, but I think the entire premise is a bit shaky.
_heimdall 3y ago
It actually seems understandable to me. Many politicians in the US are former lawyers, judges, etc. They could easily have learned lessons of how much privacy protections can get in the way of "real" investigations. They're also part of a government that has been handed more and more power for the better part of 60 years, privacy laws are a problem if your honest view is that the government is there to protect us by whatever means are necessary.

kergonath 3y ago

These terms should be null and void. You cannot give informed consent as you have no clue what could happen in the future. Consent should be given on a case by case basis. Also, not hidden in 100 pages long EULAs that you have to agree to in block in order to do anything. There cannot be informed consent with coercion and deception either. Personal data are as private as medical records.

jeroenhd 3y ago
This is why the GDPR demands explicit consent in many cases (even though many companies don't follow the law, unfortunately). The EULA is not a defence for a lot of data sharing anymore. In my opinion, the USA deserves a similar law to protect its citizens from this type of crap. Unfortunately, privacy protection doesn't seem to be a very popular topic in American politics.
_heimdall 3y ago
> You cannot give informed consent as you have no clue what could happen in the future That view would completely void any possibility of giving consent to anything, ever. The same logic could be used after the fact to sue your doctors for example. "Sure I signed something, but that couldn't have been informed consent when I didn't yet know that the operation was going to go poorly."

heavyset_go 3y ago

In this case, explicit would be asking users if specific named datum can be shared with specific named parties each time there is a data request, just like you're explicitly asked to send specific emails you write before they're sent.