SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Europe is bracing itself for a big shake-up in how we pay for things online, which will have significant consequences for businesses across the region. Similar to how GDPR hugely impacted how millions of organizations handle personal data when it was enforced last year, Strong Customer Authentication (or SCA) will have profound implications for how businesses handle online transactions and how we pay for things in our everyday lives when it is enforced on September 14.
SCA will require an extra layer of authentication for online payments. Where a card number and address once sufficed, customers will now be required to include at least two of the following three factors to do anything as simple as order a taxi or pay for a music streaming service. Something they know (like a password or PIN), something they own (like a token or smartphone), and something they are (like a fingerprint or biometric facial features).
https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/05/10/your-business-passed-the-gdpr-challenge-but-sca-is-next/
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:52PM (7 children)
Which is exactly how this new "right" will be abused. In all of the situations I've heard this discussed, it's been related to libel. Which means, it's really about the rich and powerful being able to suppress information.
Nobody has the right to be forgotten in the real world. If they did, Trump would've already sued to make us all forget the previous few decades of his inept bullshit.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:52AM (6 children)
If you call me, say, a paedophile, that's libellous. I would sue. I'm not rich, nor powerful.
If you go and do such things to people without cause, fact or stating that it's an opinion (*cough* Elon Musk *cough*), it's a court case to decide if they are true or not. In the meantime I may well ask you to remove it, which a prudent person might well do to avoid a lawsuit, or to avoid worsening an existing lawsuit. If you can't edit a comment, how are you going to do that - by asking the website to do that for you.
Once the outcome of a case is established, do you expect the person to just leave that libel on the site? The poster, or website, will be court-ordered to remove it.
Thus the facility needs to exist anyway. Once it does, it's literally just a matter of moving the button from the admin panel to the individual user profile to make everyone be able to use it voluntarily if they wish.
The value of even a year-old Slashdot/Soylent comment is absolutely minimal.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:59AM (2 children)
Thankfully we are not subject to the UK's absurd libel laws here.
If by minimal you mean priceless, we agree. A user's comments are a true and exact history of what they have said. Hiding history is foolish at best but far more commonly it is actively malevolent.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday May 15 2019, @06:03PM (1 child)
A young, female teacher is being accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour by the parents of a 7 year old pupil of hers. The parents go to the police to file charges, but also ask other parents whether they've noticed something with their children -- on social media. The next morning a mob stands ready at the school gate; the teacher, who had no idea about the complaint (neither had the school leadership), needs to be evacuated by the police.
Journalists dive onto the case: it seems multiple pupils of her had similar complaints, an open-and-shut case of a paedophile predator -- but for added thrills, a female one, young and quite attractive herself. Her name and face gets plastered all over the media, both offline and online; her address and telephone numbers get exposed; she needs to go in hiding against death threats.
Two weeks later, the police investigation finally gets wrapped up: nothing had happened -- the specks of blood on the little girls vagina had a natural, and only a natural, cause; the other so-called victims were a case of mass hysteria.
That young teacher now works as a career counselor; she'll probably never get a job as teacher ever again -- no school risks hiring her, in case a parent goes researching on the internet.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:16PM
The answer to which is more speech not less. As it always is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:23PM (2 children)
Nope. I would leave the libel up and ADD a disclaimer comment with links to the public record and court case. That is in YOUR best interests too as the victim. Anybody hearing the libel and searches for it would find the comment, but then also find all of the links in the legal disclaimer that allow them to review the public record for itself.
I realize now that you're in the UK, and fundamentally fucked with regards to those laws. Not uprising that the rich and powerful in the UK want a heavy weapon to wield to control information. In any case, SN isn't a UK company or organization, and we're not subject to your ridiculous libel laws or their philosophies.
In the US, that libel comment would become part of the public record. Increasingly, these are coming online as searchable databases, IIRC. I can go down to a government building in Las Vegas, and review whatever I want. When the court case is concluded, those records are not destroyed. In a sense, they were made indelible through a legal Streisand effect. With everything coming online, and information anywhere at your fingertips, it's not unreasonable for the libelous comment on SN to have hyperlinks to the court case and public record added in a disclaimer. The distinction between finding it in the public record, and SN, is a meaningless one. We both know that it would be in many more places than that, and attempt to police information everywhere is simply a non-starter. Authoritarians have it out to be able to do exactly that, but you would find it easier to remove a drop of water that fell into the ocean.
Since it is addition, AND it is a good faith attempt to correct the libel, it shouldn't be an unreasonable method for the "moderation" you desire.
What we're never going to do, buddy, is allow you to delete anything you've ever said on this site.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:37PM (1 child)
We did once, actually. The first time MDC posted his SSN, we replaced the comment text with [REDACTED] or some such thinking it was a passing moment of insanity. We left every time after that up because it obviously wasn't. Passing that is.
We also politely asked someone, I forget who, to not post lots of copyrighted material they didn't hold the copyright on to their journal. They were using it as a scratch pad or some such and happily switched to a another pad that didn't leave us legally liable for anything.
Which is to say, there are things we'll redact. Doxxing and DMCA claims, for instance. We're not in the business of giving anyone's mouth a do-over though. So much so that nobody on staff has even thought of suggesting admins have a web interface for editing comments. It's all by-hand, CLI MySQL if it actually needs doing. Which is a pain, character escaping arbitrary English prose correctly the first time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:07PM
Thank you for the correction. It seems to be an acceptable middle ground.
I appreciate that philosophy.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.