4 ms·

> It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, be

> It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, because their system updater gives them arbitrary code execution on every Windows machine? My understanding is it's closer to something like: They cannot order a company to create new tools, but can tell them to not destroy the data they already have. So, in the question of MS having the ability to create a tool that extracts your data is not the same as MS already having that tool functioning and collecting all of your data that they store and are then told to simply not destroy. Similarly, VPNs that are not set-up to create logs can't keep or hand over what they don't have. Laws can be made to require the collection and storage of all user data by every online company, but we're not there -- yet. Many companies already do it on their own, and the user then decides if that's acceptable or not to continue using that service. If the company created their service to not have the data in the first place, this probably never would have found its way to a judge. Their service would cost more, be slower, and probably be difficult to iterate on as it's easier to hack things together in a fast moving space then build privacy/security first solutions.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
The issue is, what does "the data they already have" mean? Does your landlord "have" all the files in your apartment because they have a key to the door?
- 1659447091 1y ago
  Real Property, Tenant's rights, and Landlord laws are an entirely separate domain. However, I believe in some places if you stop paying rent long enough, then yes all your stuff now belongs to the landlord because they have the "key". "the data they already have" means the data the user gave the company (no one is "giving" their files to their landlord) and that the company is in full possession of and now owns. Users in this case are not in possession or ownership of the data they gave away at this point. If you hand out photocopies of the files in your apartment, the files in your apartment are still yours, but the copies you gave away to a bunch of companies are not. Those now belong to the company you gave them to and they can do whatever they want with it. So if they keep it and a judge tells them the documents are not to be destroyed (because laws things), they would probably get into trouble if they went against the order. Which is what I was trying to bring attention to; the fact that the company has a choice in what data (if any) they decided to collect, possess, and own. If they never collected/stored it then no one's privacy would be threatened.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > However, I believe in some places if you stop paying rent long enough, then yes all your stuff now belongs to the landlord because they have the "key". There is nothing analogous to this happening in this case though. The users aren't in default on any financial obligations. > "the data they already have" means the data the user gave the company (no one is "giving" their files to their landlord) and that the company is in full possession of and now owns You put your files in the landlord's building because you're leasing the apartment from them. You put your data on the provider's servers because you're leasing the service from them. How do they own this data? Did you assign the copyright to them? Does the judge's ability to order them to keep it depend on what the contract between you and the service says?
    - thunderfork 1y ago
      [dead]
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      > You put your files in the landlord's building because you're leasing the apartment from them. You put your data on the provider's servers The comparison between the physical and digital is not 1 to 1. You are putting copies of your files(data) into a digital server that you do not have possession of. You have possession of your apartment and there are laws that apply to that world that in no way apply to copies of files you gave (gave being the key word) to the server that you do not have possession of. Unless the company (company being the problem) specifically sets up terms, usually in a very expensive enterprise contract -- with legal cutouts for law things judges may do -- which promises what you give to their servers will function more like the rental apt you are trying to tie together -- you are simply giving them data. point. blank. simple. Even then they could renege and then you deal with it or go through long legal process to sue. The ship for data privacy has already long sailed by the time you come at a judge that told them not to destroy it. People agree to it so companies get away with being allowed to use the copies of data you give them however they want. Thats why it's different. People(society that made the laws) don't accept that behaviour from landlords. They shouldn't from the online world either but here we are. I have no other way of helping this click for you, and at this point it's just moving the same words around to try and find the right sequence that will. Good luck, take care.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

The issue is, what does "the data they already have" mean? Does your landlord "have" all the files in your apartment because they have a key to the door?

1659447091 1y ago
Real Property, Tenant's rights, and Landlord laws are an entirely separate domain. However, I believe in some places if you stop paying rent long enough, then yes all your stuff now belongs to the landlord because they have the "key". "the data they already have" means the data the user gave the company (no one is "giving" their files to their landlord) and that the company is in full possession of and now owns. Users in this case are not in possession or ownership of the data they gave away at this point. If you hand out photocopies of the files in your apartment, the files in your apartment are still yours, but the copies you gave away to a bunch of companies are not. Those now belong to the company you gave them to and they can do whatever they want with it. So if they keep it and a judge tells them the documents are not to be destroyed (because laws things), they would probably get into trouble if they went against the order. Which is what I was trying to bring attention to; the fact that the company has a choice in what data (if any) they decided to collect, possess, and own. If they never collected/stored it then no one's privacy would be threatened.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > However, I believe in some places if you stop paying rent long enough, then yes all your stuff now belongs to the landlord because they have the "key". There is nothing analogous to this happening in this case though. The users aren't in default on any financial obligations. > "the data they already have" means the data the user gave the company (no one is "giving" their files to their landlord) and that the company is in full possession of and now owns You put your files in the landlord's building because you're leasing the apartment from them. You put your data on the provider's servers because you're leasing the service from them. How do they own this data? Did you assign the copyright to them? Does the judge's ability to order them to keep it depend on what the contract between you and the service says?
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    > You put your files in the landlord's building because you're leasing the apartment from them. You put your data on the provider's servers The comparison between the physical and digital is not 1 to 1. You are putting copies of your files(data) into a digital server that you do not have possession of. You have possession of your apartment and there are laws that apply to that world that in no way apply to copies of files you gave (gave being the key word) to the server that you do not have possession of. Unless the company (company being the problem) specifically sets up terms, usually in a very expensive enterprise contract -- with legal cutouts for law things judges may do -- which promises what you give to their servers will function more like the rental apt you are trying to tie together -- you are simply giving them data. point. blank. simple. Even then they could renege and then you deal with it or go through long legal process to sue. The ship for data privacy has already long sailed by the time you come at a judge that told them not to destroy it. People agree to it so companies get away with being allowed to use the copies of data you give them however they want. Thats why it's different. People(society that made the laws) don't accept that behaviour from landlords. They shouldn't from the online world either but here we are. I have no other way of helping this click for you, and at this point it's just moving the same words around to try and find the right sequence that will. Good luck, take care.