Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by on Sunday February 23 2020, @03:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the anything-not-illegal-is-compulsory dept.

Bleh. Apparently not caring what you do on other sites or even requiring any personal information isn't good enough for the state of Confusion^WCalifornia, so we have a shiny, new, temporary Privacy Policy posted on every page and linked at the top of the nav bar.

If you feel like prettying the language, layout, or whatever up before I get around to it, feel free to do so and submit a pull request.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:36PM (20 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:36PM (#961437) Journal

    The thing is, if you don't say you don't collect information, how are those who come here via a link supposed to know? (OK, they could look at the html, but most people couldn't read that, and I've never bothered ... hmmm, those look like links to perl scripts (etc.).

    The real question is "What if you lie in your privacy policy?". This is likely a piece of security theater. (OTOH, I've never read the law, so perhaps not.)

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:48PM (18 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:48PM (#961448) Homepage Journal

    And there's the problem. The people behind laws like these are themselves bad actors at heart or they wouldn't assume everyone else is. Crap like this doesn't turn a criminal into an upstanding citizen, it just treats upstanding citizens like criminals.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @07:29PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @07:29PM (#961515)

      Top kek libertarian logic right there. Wish I could go through life so confidently stupid, all the self-reflection and critical thinking gets tiring.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 23 2020, @08:22PM (1 child)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday February 23 2020, @08:22PM (#961536) Homepage

        Californian assholes making our laws and voting for them seem to be doing everything out of spite schorched-Earth style rather than looking out for the people's best interest.

        If I didn't know any better I'd say it's because they're all Mossad about to be tried for sedition. We haven't seen much of Liddle Adam Schitt since the impeachment fiasco but I'm sure the lawmakers are rubbing their hands together trying to figure out what convenient or tasty thing they want to ban next.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @08:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2020, @08:42PM (#961543)

          Ah, back to day drinking huh?

          You should really get into a rehab clinic, you're not a good drunk. The confederates lost, get over it.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @01:46AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 24 2020, @01:46AM (#961654) Homepage Journal

        Well, you've got the stupid nailed. Work on your confidence and you'll get there eventually.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @03:47AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @03:47AM (#961707)

      Requiring websites to tell users how their data is being used is not treating everyone like criminals. The bad actors aren't the legislators writing and passing these laws, but the companies that show blatant disregard for the privacy of the users. It is not a horrible or unreasonable burden to require you to state what data you collect about users and how that data is used.

      The reason that "upstanding citizens" become criminals in this context is because the pursuit of profits is placed ahead of all other interests so that it's no longer important to do right by your customers and users. Milton Friendman's idea that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits has been incredibly damaging to capitalism. When the pursuit of profit is placed ahead of anything else, that is when otherwise responsible businesses go wrong.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @12:45PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 24 2020, @12:45PM (#961796) Homepage Journal

        Any burden that is forced on good actors because it's possible they might decide to act badly is an unreasonable burden and treating them like a criminal. That you're in favor of it is a function of your own shortsightedness and choosing the illusion of security over liberty. Franklin would say you deserve neither.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @07:40PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @07:40PM (#961956)

        look, you stupid fucking slave, i don't need a professional thief telling me how to write my privacy policy, or mandating fucking popups to tell people that cookies exist, even though i don't fucking have any fucking tracking cookies. Nor am i interested in addressing stupid shit like DNT as i have no fucking spy scripts. Now, i'm supposed to write some script to remove one user's data from all my backups for free? fuck you and your parasitic masters.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @09:36PM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @09:36PM (#962015)

          Yes, cursing at me repeatedly is really going to win me over to your side. Your rage would be better directed at the system that encourages this behavior and the businesses that don't respect users' privacy. When the sole objective of most corporations is to maximize profits and selling users' data is profitable, pretty much everyone is going to sell users' data and not respect their privacy. I'd love for the free market to handle this situation but there just aren't a lot of alternatives that don't sell users' data in certain types of businesses. Legislation like this won't be necessary when the free market is able to handle the situation. So far, that hasn't happened.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @10:01PM (7 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 24 2020, @10:01PM (#962030) Homepage Journal

            Nah, dude's rage is placed exactly where it belongs. Other people are not yours to command. Thinking otherwise is sick. Seek help.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @10:09PM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24 2020, @10:09PM (#962035)

              So much for being civil and professional unless people are assholes to you. Who's the "shithead troll" now?

              • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @11:49PM (5 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 24 2020, @11:49PM (#962080) Homepage Journal

                That was civil. And truthful. And informative.

                And thanks for showing that you're exactly the disingenuous shithead troll who cares nothing about what he's complaining about that I said you were from the very start. Making one semi-coherent and civil comment might have actually confused someone.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @12:41AM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @12:41AM (#962110)

                  It would be shocking for you to discuss something without hurling personal attacks in just about every post. Your comment about needing to seek help and being a sick person was exactly that. If you could actually defend your position, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks.

                  Basic standards of consumer protection are NOT treating everyone like a criminal. Nobody is placing some great burden on you or this site by insisting that you add a bit of text explaining what data you collect and how it's used. The outrage you're expressing is extremely disproportionate to the actual burden of being required to have a privacy policy. This isn't treating everyone like criminals to require you to meet basic minimum standards so users know how their data is being used. By that logic, requiring people to obtain building permits and meet building codes would be treating anyone doing construction like a criminal. Or being required to obtain a concealed carry permit could be construed to treat gun owners who want to carry concealed like criminals. Requiring a privacy policy isn't an unreasonable burden.

                  You're conflating maximizing your individual liberties with maintaining a free society. When you maximize the liberties of individuals, you end up with anarchy, not freedom. Some restriction on individual liberty is required in order to have a free society. Laws that restrict individual liberty can reduce the freedom of society or they can protect it, but it depends on the nature of the law. Privacy and data protection laws restrict the liberties of businesses and perhaps of some individuals to increase the privacy for all citizens. In this case, a privacy policy requires that users be able to understand how a website is going to use their data so they can make an informed choice about whether to share their data with the site. It places a very small burden on the website with a likely significant boost to the privacy of everyone and, therefore, their freedom.

                  I want a free society, not the anarchy you seek. A small burden on individual liberty is worth it to significantly increase the freedom of society. You have a warped idea that a small burden from government is restricting your freedom but that businesses should be able to do whatever they want. Most corporations act like psychopaths because their sole objective is to maximize profit for shareholders. They're following Milton Friedman's idea that the sole social obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits. It is for this reason that businesses are willing to cut corners with worker safety, user privacy, and the quality of products and services. If you have your way, government won't restrict liberties at all, but we'll end up slaves to big businesses. The society you want is absolutely not a free society. It's anarchy that will end up being ruled by massive corporations.

                  I am willing to allow reasonable restrictions to maintain a free society -- free from an authoritarian government but also free from corporate slavery. You, on the other hand, want to kick government out altogether, which will allow corporations the fully unrestricted ability to disregard the interests of users, customers, and workers, all in the name of maximizing profit.

                  A small burden to protect free society is worth it. You are NOT being treated like a criminal. What you're after isn't freedom at all. Your individual liberties won't matter when the absence of government gives way to anarchy and corporate slavery.

                  Now try responding without personal attacks next time. If you can make your case, you can make it without personal attacks.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:44PM (3 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:44PM (#963130) Homepage Journal

                    Yeah, sorry not sorry. I'm not buying it when you started the Privacy Policy topic with attacks and insults. Feel free to take your concern trolling and your tone trolling and shove them both up your ass.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:03AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:03AM (#963324)

                      I wish you had discussed the topic instead of posting what you did. Upon reading your post, I've come away thinking you crossed a line. I said nothing in this particular series of comments in this thread about initiating the privacy policy discussion. I said nothing to that effect in this thread. The only reason someone would have been aware of that is by seeing my hashed IP. Connecting me to that original comment is sharing information that is normally only available to administrators.

                      At this moment, you haven't posted anything that would directly reveal my IP address or other personal information. I'll grant that. But the fact that you were willing to disclose details only available to administrators like you seems to seriously undermine what you've said about your conviction to defend privacy. When it was convenient for you during an argument, it seems you were willing to violate that conviction. I expected that you would act in good faith and not disclose such information under any circumstances. It appears to me that you chose not to act in good faith and you've violated my trust that this website will honor my privacy.

                      I've posted other AC comments that discuss the nature of my employment and where I work to discuss other matters in good faith. I did so with the trust that the administrators of this site would act in good faith and wouldn't provide details about which ACs are posting which comments unless compelled to do so by law. I believe you've violated that trust and violated my privacy. If you were willing to violate the privacy of an AC poster in this instance, it raises serious questions about whether you'd do it again. I'm not sure that I can trust that you wouldn't out ACs again when it suits your purposes.

                      I'm far from perfect. I make lots of mistakes. When I'm frustrated with someone or in a heated argument, I've said far too many things that I regret. Part of the reason I post AC is because I don't think people should be judged on the basis of a few things they've said in the past that are stupid. I don't trust people to not dig something up about me in the past and hold it against me long after I've regretted what I've said and tried to learn from my mistake. And yes, I actually do regret some of the things I've said to you, which is why I've tried to address you in a conciliatory tone at times -- something you've repeatedly rejected. And I do apologize to you for the mistakes I've made. I did overreact about you saying that fusta wasn't also posting as AC and I'll admit that. Part of the reason I've replied in a hostile tone to you is because you've adopted the same tone with me in the past when I tried to address you in good faith. But I've always believed that one of the reasons anonymous posting is important is because I don't think people should have to fear that stupid comments they've made in the past will be held against them for a long time. I wish I could trust that my anonymity wouldn't be outed, but now I'm not 100% sure.

                      If that's not your intent and I've completely misunderstood what you were saying, please tell me right now. I really want to believe your comments about being willing to even defy a court order to protect user privacy. But this exchange seems to say otherwise. I've tried very hard to word my comment in a way that conveys uncertainty about what I think happened. If you can provide a compelling reason that I misunderstood your comment, I'll take you at your word and drop it. I might even consider going on IRC to try to make amends and clear the air provided that my privacy is respected and we deal in good faith. I really want to believe that SoylentNews respects my privacy, though I'm not confident after your post. Please clarify.

                      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:00AM (1 child)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:00AM (#963407) Homepage Journal

                        Whether you started the topic in this thread or another thread is irrelevant. It's extremely obvious that you don't actually give a shit about it, you're just trolling. Fuck off.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:38PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:38PM (#963646)

                          I very much care ensuring that my privacy is protected. It's a shame you didn't take my concern seriously enough to even give me a straight answer. I've tried to be conciliatory. I even offered an apology in my comment and reviewed my comment to make sure it expressed uncertainty before posting it. I am still concerned about my privacy based on your behavior. Do I need to ask one of the other admins about my privacy concerns or do you want to give me a straight answer?

                          The only person I've really argued with on this site is you. I've occasionally had disagreements with Azuma but those have been more civil on both sides. Otherwise, I can't think of any arguments I've had with anyone on this site. You, however, have a lot of enemies. There's a saying that if you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole.

    • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday February 24 2020, @10:07AM (1 child)

      by Common Joe (33) <reversethis-{moc ... 1010.eoj.nommoc}> on Monday February 24 2020, @10:07AM (#961768) Journal

      I'll disagree with you just a little bit.

      In an ideal world, I'd like to know what a website collects about me and be able to view that in plain, curt, understandable English.

      Now, you and I both know that our world is not ideal and every website we frequent (except for this one) obfuscates (and often contradicts) the important points in the privacy policy. Which leads right back to your comment being on the mark. 99% of the websites out there operate criminally (or at least immorally). The other 1% (like this website) are then forced to come up with some piece of crap privacy policy so as to satisfy... well, I'm not sure what they are trying to satisfy. But it's so out of hand that when I go to a website, I assume they vacuum up all the information they can about me.

      I want a privacy policy from websites, but until this data collection nonsense is fixed, it makes no sense to have privacy policies. Privacy policies are only a farce these days. And an extreme waste of everyone's time.

      So, I guess, in short, thanks for doing the unpleasant work so we can keep chugging along. It is appreciated.

  • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:49PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:49PM (#961449)

    "What if you lie in your privacy policy?"
    Have you ever seen a common privacy policy that was not clearly 100% pure grade-A bull fucking shit? It is fairly well accepted that polices may read "we protect your privacy! Reeeallly!" while they turn around and quietly sell that data to the highest bidder.