3 ms·
So weird that this is allowed. Company does it: maybe pay a fine. Individual does it: maybe get charged with a CFAA crime.
by tehwebguy 13y ago
So weird that this is allowed. Company does it: maybe pay a fine. Individual does it: maybe get charged with a CFAA crime.
- crazypyro 13y agoYou just gotta be big enough to scare the government in court.
- at-fates-hands 13y agoI have no idea why you're getting downvoted. It's pretty obvious the government doesn't like to tangle with big companies unless its necessary. Large corporate legal teams can drag out a fight for several years, earning the ire of state senators voting constituents, and having a negative effect on their re-election possibilities.
- anigbrowl 13y agoSnapchat is not a big company.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dguaraglia 13y agoYou should read Matt Taibbi's new book " The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap". It explains how this system of "well, if it's a company doing it then I guess we can't press charges" came to be.
- higherpurpose 13y agoNot to mention this "20 year of privacy policy monitoring" seems to be all but useless. They have that for Facebook, too, and I don't think it's a hassle for them in changing the privacy policy every few months without even notifying its users at all. It's just business as usual for Facebook, and I assume the same will happen with Snapchat. I think this 20 year policy has only 2 purposes: 1) appease the public and show them that they're "doing something", no matter how useless that thing is 2) possibly blackmail these companies to give the government their data more easily next time they request it - or else.