SW rant time
-
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
What's up with all those deleted posts?
He thinks he is proving that you can delete posts that you own. But that was never discussed and of course, you can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
What's up with all those deleted posts?
He thinks he is proving that you can delete posts that you own. But that was never discussed and of course, you can.
In theory, but how many data service providers do you think keep all the data on the back end and just remove the links to the front end display?
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
What's up with all those deleted posts?
@DustinB3403 figured out that what he posted didn't make sense and is deleting what he said.
But you've already quoted them in your replies.
-
Basically, it is just layers and layers of confusion.
He thinks that by demonstating my point that he is proving his. He didn't realize that he just demonstrated what I was saying at the very beginning.
-
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
What's up with all those deleted posts?
@DustinB3403 figured out that what he posted didn't make sense and is deleting what he said.
But you've already quoted them in your replies.
Yup, which are protected under the first ammendement.
-
@computerchip said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
What's up with all those deleted posts?
He thinks he is proving that you can delete posts that you own. But that was never discussed and of course, you can.
In theory, but how many data service providers do you think keep all the data on the back end and just remove the links to the front end display?
Basically all.
-
@scottalanmiller The same thing applies to former employees who stored personally data on company computers?
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
The right to be forgotten means we don't get to ask those kinds of questions though.
If I chose to close my account, that data has to go away at some point. Not immediately, but at some point.So here is the post that Dustin is trying to prove, but actually disproved because he was confused. The point was that you can only delete posts while you still have an account. He still has an account, therefore can delete posts. Had he removed his account, his posts would be locked in place.
My point, exactly.
-
@black3dynamite said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller The same thing applies to former employees who stored personally data on company computers?
They don't even need to remove links. Employee data is something you are generally required to maintain. You certainly don't delete it.
-
Transactions that happen in Mangolassi would be covered by US law because when you post on Mangolassi that is where it is hosted. I buy my house water filers from a company in Idaho. I live in Illinois. I can sue that company if I wanted in Idaho state court or in Federal court because it is commerce across state lines. I cannot sue them in Illinois court. They don't have a business presence in Illinois and are not required to comply with Illinois law. As the consumer, I am aware of this, I always look for where the person/business is that I am about to buy from is located. Someone in Spain who uses the internet and accesses something, not in their country is agreeing to use Mangolassi which is governed by US law and not EU. A person using the internet to access something in America is no different if they used a plane to come to American and do business either way they are covered under US law
-
Isn't this how the piratebay worked for so many years? It kept moving it's data to countries where there were no pirating laws or where laws were lax?
-
@computerchip said in SW rant time:
Isn't this how the piratebay worked for so many years? It kept moving it's data to countries where there were no pirating laws or where laws were lax?
Correct.
-
I think @DustinB3403 was confused about the EU laws because the new directive wants to focus on protecting EU citizen PHI even outside of country borders when possible. Even companies only based in the US must comply with EU standards for PHI. Obviously the United States and the EU came to an agreement for this to happen, and it isn't a given right with every country in the world. It's not like the EU can go after North Korea or other countries that don't have agreements.
-
@irj said in SW rant time:
I think @DustinB3403 was confused about the EU laws because the new directive wants to focus on protecting EU citizen PHI even outside of country borders when possible. Even companies only based in the US must comply with EU standards for PHI.
US companies don't even need to comply with US standards! That's why we have HIPAA, to ensure that they don't.
-
I love how so many people think they are experts on GDPR when even the people who wrote the GDPR rules can't clearly explain them. This goes both for people who fully assert that EU rules are enforceable abroad as well as those who couldn't imagine a world where that would be true.
Also love how only the first 10 posts related to the initial SW rant. Hahaha
Popcorn getting stale...I'm just here to watch the show.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
This goes both for people who fully assert that EU rules are enforceable abroad as well as those who couldn't imagine a world where that would be true.
Well, that they are NOT enforceable abroad is one of the most basic legal principles. People from other countries can't write laws for your country. Doesn't matter how complex that law is, it's non-applicable. No matter what that law says, no matter how it is written, it's of no concern to an entity that is not under its jurisdiction.
-
@scottalanmiller Even you know this isn't completely true. US laws have been enforced all around the world. That's why there are extradition treaties. Someone can break a US law (easy example is copyright) and be forced to appear in a US court to answer for the US crime against a US company. This also happens the other way around too where other countries have treaties with the US. If you want to find out, read the list of treaties in force https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm
The blanket statement that a foreign law could never be enforced on a US citizen is laughable. I realize you may be making a more precise point but you often like to delve into the minutia of a thing to show how precisely your argument applies. I'm sorry, but in this case, the generality of that last statement simply is false.
Keep in mind my statement is neither in defense of @DustinB3403's statements or yours in argument. This statement applies to your last comment and the general thinking that a foreign law couldn't be enforced on a US (or other) citizen.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller Even you know this isn't completely true. US laws have been enforced all around the world.
No, that's someone extending a US law locally, not the same thing.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
Someone can break a US law (easy example is copyright) and be forced to appear in a US court to answer for the US crime against a US company.
Can you find any example of this? Because without local copyright protection, that's how China and India get around that.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
The blanket statement that a foreign law could never be enforced on a US citizen is laughable.
No, it's not. It really can't.
