You're missing the fact that many HTML tags can have event tracking attributes that cause JavaScript scripts to run, and said scripts can harvest a great deal of data, not unlike the urchin script that is at the core of Google Analytics' page tracking code. You'd be amazed at how much 'anonymized' data you can see in Google Analytics, and that's not even explicitly malicious.
There are companies out there with not-insignificant numbers of data subjects who have complied with the requirement to send out privacy notices to every single one of them. I know because I work for one of them. We have clients all over the world so goodness knows how much the postage cost for those whose email address is not on our records.
So the credit agency in question really has no excuse. It is possible to meet the requirements of Article 14 of the GDPR.
So far the article and the discussion seem quite US-oriented (which is understandable given the nature of Techdirt and the broad distribution of the audience here). However Facebook has a much larger audience than just the US, so the suggestion, for example, that FCC rules could or should apply is entirely inappropriate. Indeed, much of what the FCC permits is deeply offensive when seen through Malaysian or Arabian or Mongolian eyes (just examples, not meant as either an inclusive nor exclusive list of places where culture differs from the US), and there is no doubt content such cultures would accept content USians would quail to see.
In the end, I think the only answer to content moderation at scale is to leverage the user base as a starting point, accepting that a) determined bad actors can maliciously 'moderate' content away, and b) occasionally things will be missed from your personal point of view.
"Just Because The Rest Of The World Doesn't Have A 1st Amendment, Doesn't Mean It Can Trample Online Speech" ... and just because the USA has a 1st Amendment to its constitution does not make it apply anywhere outside the USA.
Laws, cultures and languages exist beyond the shores of the USA (even the extended shores of the non-contiguous states and outlying islands) that are just as valid a set of standards to live by. Some of which have had various forms of democracy since centuries before the USA was even a dream in the republican rebels wildest imaginations.
Yes, the 1st amendment does set down a decent principal, but it is not universal.
Indeed, if Nintendo were to grant such a limited purpose license, it would be to their credit, and would create a considerably larger positive reputational effect that the damage they seem willing to suffer by their continued obsession with C&Ds.
The followup reporting in the second quote in the article points out that the telnet interface wasn't visible to the internet, so yes, telnet was only enabled on internal interfaces.
In the end, network equipment has to be connected to upstream & downstream cabling (or network) in order to send anything to China. Surely somebody has put Huawei kit in a sandboxed network environment to find out whether it sends anything home? No need to examine the contents of the box, just check ALL outputs that are being routed anywhere unexpected.
But that would mean actually doing some work... why do that when you can posture and preen and encourage your base to do all the outrage and shouting for you?
Iceland (the country) had to take it to the EUIPO because Iceland (the company) had a trademark granted by the EUIPO to be used in the region governed (for trademark purposes) by the EUIPO. Iceland (the country) does not rule the EU (nor does France, Germany, the UK, or any other EU member nation), and therefore when there are issues about trademarks in the EU, the EUIPO is the ruling body.
Within Iceland (the country) is absolutely able to block Iceland (the company) from having any trademark protection.
Generally speaking, the cost of an employee is considered to be roughly equivalent to double their wages, when averaged out across an organisation. So that $6b just became $12b.
Nonsense.
They are also used by people who want to find out if it's worth purchasing an author's work.
They're used by people who cannot afford to purchase books on spec.
They're used by people who can't find a particular book in their local bookstore.
They're used by people who have an hour to kill waiting for the dentist.
They're used by people who want to study something away from the noises and distractions of home.
They're used by people who don't even want to look at books, because a lot of libraries (at least around here) have free wi-fi.
And many more.
Yes, instead of just "GDPR bad" how about finding out what feature(s) of GDPR make these merchants believe they need to do this. There's nothing in the regs that I can think of that requires it.
Re: WAIT A SEC! The books were never open! Where's the TOTALS?
What is this obsession you have with account holders who mostly lurk? Who cares if it takes someone years between posts? Perhaps they signed up back in the day for something they really, really, really, really wanted to say, but then didn't feel they needed to add anything for years more? Perhaps they retired from being a wage slave and finally had some spare time to read more and then ended up commenting once more?
There are occasions, when US commentators fail to recognise that there are differing legal standards across the world. Some we might agree with, some we might not.
(To insist that the US has the right standard for everything could be considered arrogance of the highest order, but that's not really why I'm commenting)
Child abuse trials (be they of prominent individuals or not) are a very difficult thing to comment on without appearing to defend the indefensible. However, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so legitimately has the same rights as anyone accused of any other crime.
The willingness of the US and UK media to shout and scream about the supposed guilt of anyone accused of abuse, or assault, or any other crime (violent ones in particular), has led to the social and personal destruction of many innocent people over the years. Is this destruction really justified as the cost of prosecuting the guilty?
Barry George was wrongly accused of the murder of Jill Dando and suffered for it for years. People have taken their own lives after being found innocent of accusations of that or worse, simply because nobody will give them the time of day anymore.
The phrase, "No smoke without fire!" encapsulates the way some people think about persons accused of a crime, regardless of the evidence. And the newspapers and other media outlets do little to help with this - they love to cover the crime & accusations in detail for days, but take almost no time at all to help clear someone's name if they're not found guilty at court.
The victims (or their families) obviously need help to recover from violent crimes, but sometimes so do innocently-but-mistakenly accused. For this reason, I would actually favour a blanket ban on reporting any accusation of this nature. That would allow the court system to deliberate without re-judgement in the media.
I've seen this problem in action in court where a number of members of a jury (of which I was a member) were quite insistent that the accused before them must be guilty of the crime of which they were accused simply because the accused was already in prison for another (entirely independent crime). The person was eventually found not guilty of the crime he was being tried for because the evidence simply did not support the accusation, but the jury deliberations took at least twice as long as they needed to because of the "He's a bad-un" attitude.
I've often said that the desire to be a career politician (of any non-voluntary flavour), be it Congress-critter, Senator, MP, MEP, or anything similar, should be seen as a seriously de-qualifying black mark against the individual.
One needs to have a certain degree of sociopathy to be willing to stand up before your peers and ask them to vote for you ahead of others equally qualified for a post. (Of course, I bet Trump doesn't see the electorate as his peers, but as his subjects and minions!)
On the post: Government Prosecutor Caught Sending Emails With Tracking Software To Reporters And Defense Attorneys
Re: Not entirely accurate
You're missing the fact that many HTML tags can have event tracking attributes that cause JavaScript scripts to run, and said scripts can harvest a great deal of data, not unlike the urchin script that is at the core of Google Analytics' page tracking code. You'd be amazed at how much 'anonymized' data you can see in Google Analytics, and that's not even explicitly malicious.
On the post: GDPR Penalties Prove Why Compliance Isn't Enough—And Why Companies Need Clarity
There are companies out there with not-insignificant numbers of data subjects who have complied with the requirement to send out privacy notices to every single one of them. I know because I work for one of them. We have clients all over the world so goodness knows how much the postage cost for those whose email address is not on our records.
So the credit agency in question really has no excuse. It is possible to meet the requirements of Article 14 of the GDPR.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Facebook Still Can't Figure Out How To Deal With Naked Breasts
and internationally speaking?
So far the article and the discussion seem quite US-oriented (which is understandable given the nature of Techdirt and the broad distribution of the audience here). However Facebook has a much larger audience than just the US, so the suggestion, for example, that FCC rules could or should apply is entirely inappropriate. Indeed, much of what the FCC permits is deeply offensive when seen through Malaysian or Arabian or Mongolian eyes (just examples, not meant as either an inclusive nor exclusive list of places where culture differs from the US), and there is no doubt content such cultures would accept content USians would quail to see.
In the end, I think the only answer to content moderation at scale is to leverage the user base as a starting point, accepting that a) determined bad actors can maliciously 'moderate' content away, and b) occasionally things will be missed from your personal point of view.
On the post: Just Because The Rest Of The World Doesn't Have A 1st Amendment, Doesn't Mean It Can Trample Online Speech
exceptionalism in action once more
"Just Because The Rest Of The World Doesn't Have A 1st Amendment, Doesn't Mean It Can Trample Online Speech" ... and just because the USA has a 1st Amendment to its constitution does not make it apply anywhere outside the USA.
Laws, cultures and languages exist beyond the shores of the USA (even the extended shores of the non-contiguous states and outlying islands) that are just as valid a set of standards to live by. Some of which have had various forms of democracy since centuries before the USA was even a dream in the republican rebels wildest imaginations.
Yes, the 1st amendment does set down a decent principal, but it is not universal.
On the post: Nintendo Slays The Threat From Modded Nintendo Games For The Commodore 64
Re: Re:
Indeed, if Nintendo were to grant such a limited purpose license, it would be to their credit, and would create a considerably larger positive reputational effect that the damage they seem willing to suffer by their continued obsession with C&Ds.
On the post: Bloomberg Appears To Flub Another China Story, Insists Telnet Is A Nefarious Huawei Backdoor
Re: Re:
The followup reporting in the second quote in the article points out that the telnet interface wasn't visible to the internet, so yes, telnet was only enabled on internal interfaces.
On the post: Marcus Hutchins -- The Guy Who Stopped Wannacry -- Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy Charges
note to self...
Although I've never done anything remotely of interest to the DOJ, remember to steer clear of the USA. Just in case.
On the post: Trump's Chinese Telecom Protectionism Always Seems To Be Lacking Evidence
Re:
In the end, network equipment has to be connected to upstream & downstream cabling (or network) in order to send anything to China. Surely somebody has put Huawei kit in a sandboxed network environment to find out whether it sends anything home? No need to examine the contents of the box, just check ALL outputs that are being routed anywhere unexpected.
But that would mean actually doing some work... why do that when you can posture and preen and encourage your base to do all the outrage and shouting for you?
On the post: The End Of The Absurdity: Iceland, The Country, Successfully Invalidates The Trademark Of Iceland Foods, The Grocer
Re: Iceland sovereign??
Iceland (the country) had to take it to the EUIPO because Iceland (the company) had a trademark granted by the EUIPO to be used in the region governed (for trademark purposes) by the EUIPO. Iceland (the country) does not rule the EU (nor does France, Germany, the UK, or any other EU member nation), and therefore when there are issues about trademarks in the EU, the EUIPO is the ruling body.
Within Iceland (the country) is absolutely able to block Iceland (the company) from having any trademark protection.
On the post: No, YouTube Cannot Reasonably Moderate All Content On Its Platform
Re: Re: Screening
Generally speaking, the cost of an employee is considered to be roughly equivalent to double their wages, when averaged out across an organisation. So that $6b just became $12b.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Technology
And this post is the reason the death of URL shorteners is not actually a Bad Thing(tm).
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
Re:
In what way does an article pointing out problems with Google's current business model count as 'shilling' for Google?
On the post: As Trump Prepares Ban On Huawei, Few Notice The Major Holes In The Underlying Logic
Re:
Good luck finding an American-made cell phone that also qualifies as top-notch.
On the post: Authors Guild Attacks Libraries For Lending Digital Books
Re: Re: With 'friends' like these...
"primarily for people who do not purchase books"?
Nonsense. They are also used by people who want to find out if it's worth purchasing an author's work. They're used by people who cannot afford to purchase books on spec. They're used by people who can't find a particular book in their local bookstore. They're used by people who have an hour to kill waiting for the dentist. They're used by people who want to study something away from the noises and distractions of home. They're used by people who don't even want to look at books, because a lot of libraries (at least around here) have free wi-fi. And many more.
On the post: How The GDPR Is Still Ruining Christmas
Re: Ploy by retailers to avoid returns.
On the post: Techdirt 2018: The Stats.
Re: WAIT A SEC! The books were never open! Where's the TOTALS?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
Bad cops
On the post: Oxford University Gets Opposition To Its Attempt To Trademark 'Oxford' For All The Things
Re: The shoes?
On the post: Super Injunction Silences News About Vatican Official's Child Molestation Conviction, And That's Bullshit
Different legal standards
There are occasions, when US commentators fail to recognise that there are differing legal standards across the world. Some we might agree with, some we might not. (To insist that the US has the right standard for everything could be considered arrogance of the highest order, but that's not really why I'm commenting)
Child abuse trials (be they of prominent individuals or not) are a very difficult thing to comment on without appearing to defend the indefensible. However, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so legitimately has the same rights as anyone accused of any other crime.
The willingness of the US and UK media to shout and scream about the supposed guilt of anyone accused of abuse, or assault, or any other crime (violent ones in particular), has led to the social and personal destruction of many innocent people over the years. Is this destruction really justified as the cost of prosecuting the guilty?
Barry George was wrongly accused of the murder of Jill Dando and suffered for it for years. People have taken their own lives after being found innocent of accusations of that or worse, simply because nobody will give them the time of day anymore.
The phrase, "No smoke without fire!" encapsulates the way some people think about persons accused of a crime, regardless of the evidence. And the newspapers and other media outlets do little to help with this - they love to cover the crime & accusations in detail for days, but take almost no time at all to help clear someone's name if they're not found guilty at court.
The victims (or their families) obviously need help to recover from violent crimes, but sometimes so do innocently-but-mistakenly accused. For this reason, I would actually favour a blanket ban on reporting any accusation of this nature. That would allow the court system to deliberate without re-judgement in the media.
I've seen this problem in action in court where a number of members of a jury (of which I was a member) were quite insistent that the accused before them must be guilty of the crime of which they were accused simply because the accused was already in prison for another (entirely independent crime). The person was eventually found not guilty of the crime he was being tried for because the evidence simply did not support the accusation, but the jury deliberations took at least twice as long as they needed to because of the "He's a bad-un" attitude.
On the post: EU General Court Refuses To Allow St. Andrews Links To Trademark 'St. Andrews' For All The Things
Re: Broken Inputs
One needs to have a certain degree of sociopathy to be willing to stand up before your peers and ask them to vote for you ahead of others equally qualified for a post.
(Of course, I bet Trump doesn't see the electorate as his peers, but as his subjects and minions!)
Next >>