3 ms·

So you say it is okay when someone you trust, uses that trust to upload your personal files from your air-gapped system to the internet, for everyone to freely

by chme 27d ago

So you say it is okay when someone you trust, uses that trust to upload your personal files from your air-gapped system to the internet, for everyone to freely share it, because now the data is "public"? To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet, because the public has no right to know them, they are private data of an individual. They might no longer be secret, but they are still private.

embedding-shape 27d ago
I'm talking about liking waffles, then you appear asking why I hate pancakes. Fun. > To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet We have very different definitions of what "private" means. Once it's leaked, it's no longer private, and pretending it can go back to being "private" after being on the public internet, is doing no one any favors.
- chme 26d ago
  I just find it very interesting that someone equates secrecy with privacy. In my opinion, and in the current law there is a distinction. If private data got leaked, like revenge porn, it is a breach and that private data that belongs to an individual is still private, and still needs to be protected. This is what GDPR and other legislation is about. If secrecy and privacy is the same, someone that isn't able to protect their data sufficiently will not have any privacy, thus any leaking of data is now the fault of the person that got their data leaked, not of the person that broke the trust and leaked it. Your conclusion seems rather extreme to me. So of course data that got leaked, and is no longer secret is still private, because 'private' means who should be in control of that data, not about if the person has control or not. I also don't follow your point about waffles and pancakes, because this is a pretty big disagreement we have here. To me this dialog is more like you are saying "I don't like laws", and I say "While I agree that some laws are stupid, other laws are pretty useful, for instance people shouldn't be allowed rob other houses, even if they are able to do that or even where invited." And then, instead of agreeing, you sort of say, "No, I really mean that. If someone isn't able to defend their home properly or give out invitations to someone, it is okay to steal from them."

by chme 27d ago

embedding-shape 27d ago

I'm talking about liking waffles, then you appear asking why I hate pancakes. Fun. > To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet We have very different definitions of what "private" means. Once it's leaked, it's no longer private, and pretending it can go back to being "private" after being on the public internet, is doing no one any favors.

chme 26d ago
I just find it very interesting that someone equates secrecy with privacy. In my opinion, and in the current law there is a distinction. If private data got leaked, like revenge porn, it is a breach and that private data that belongs to an individual is still private, and still needs to be protected. This is what GDPR and other legislation is about. If secrecy and privacy is the same, someone that isn't able to protect their data sufficiently will not have any privacy, thus any leaking of data is now the fault of the person that got their data leaked, not of the person that broke the trust and leaked it. Your conclusion seems rather extreme to me. So of course data that got leaked, and is no longer secret is still private, because 'private' means who should be in control of that data, not about if the person has control or not. I also don't follow your point about waffles and pancakes, because this is a pretty big disagreement we have here. To me this dialog is more like you are saying "I don't like laws", and I say "While I agree that some laws are stupid, other laws are pretty useful, for instance people shouldn't be allowed rob other houses, even if they are able to do that or even where invited." And then, instead of agreeing, you sort of say, "No, I really mean that. If someone isn't able to defend their home properly or give out invitations to someone, it is okay to steal from them."