4 ms·
I came here expecting someone trying to pull a anti-privacy fast one. Nice try. Just because an IP address alone is not enough to legally beyond doubt identify
by rickmb 14y ago
I came here expecting someone trying to pull a anti-privacy fast one. Nice try.
Just because an IP address alone is not enough to legally beyond doubt identify a person doesn't mean collecting IP addresses in combination with online behavior doesn't violate people's privacy.
These are two fundamentally different things. The only real way to identify someone is through things like DNA or fingerprints. Everything else is just an indication, it may not be enough to serve as evidence in court, but it's definitely personal.
The birthmark on my ass may not be unique, but it doesn't give you the right to collect pictures of it without my permission.
- jnorthrop 14y agoMy intention was not to "pull a fast one." If you read my blog[1], which of late is mostly about privacy, I think you'll find I'm fairly neutral on the subject. Having said that there is all sorts of pseudo-anonymous or anonymous data that when combined with other data points become PII. I find this particular case interesting and am curious to hear what others think about it's implications beyond the piracy case. An opposing example to this would be the recent ruling in Massachusetts, and why I found this one so interesting. The court there found that zip codes are PII[2]. [1] http://www.jnorthrop.me http://www.jnorthrop.me [2] http://blog.martindale.com/massachusetts-federal-district-court-rules-zip-code-is-pii http://blog.martindale.com/massachusetts-federal-district-co...
- antonej 14y agoMaybe not of the birthmark on your ass, but photos alone (without accompanying identifiers) are not protected as PII under US law.
- antonej 14y agoMaybe not of the birthmark on your ass, but photos alone (without accompanying identifiers) are not protected as PII under US law.