618
US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I said Facebook because we know they're doing it and you'd still have to actually prove that case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Sure, and we should absolutely indict Facebook. And ideally our government wouldn't be so corrupt that it could indict our own government agencies from buying information from them in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments (and probably the 14th).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    How about making data collection other than necessary to operate a website illegal, then making the sale of that data illegal, and absolutely require a warrant to collect it, including from FISA court?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I disagree, especially because "other than necessary" is a pretty squishy concept (i.e. selling tailored ads could be considered "necessary to operate a website"). Instead of that, I think selling or providing any form of data collected without the customer's explicit consent (and to consent, the customer must know what data is being s hared) or without a warrant (and only the data in the warrant) should be illegal.

    That should be sufficient and actually enforceable, since it has very clear boundaries on what's included.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think we're in agreement. I could have said "technologically necessary" to have been more clear, but I don't agree sale or sharing should be by consent. I think it should be illegal, full stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I think it should be illegal, full stop.

    Then we're certainly not in agreement. And that's fine.

    I think sale of data should be 100% allowed, provided the customer consents (and gets fair compensation). The customer, however, needs to be aware of what data is being sold, to whom, and what they're getting in return. Burying that 20 pages deep in a TOS doesn't count, it needs to be in a format that an average person could reasonably be expected to fully understand. The service provider and the company receiving the data should have strict legal requirements to keep that data safe, so if there's a breach of any variety, the consequences would be a lot steeper than a few dollars per person affected.

    So essentially what I'm after here is transparency to the customer, and actual consequences for companies that fail to protect customer data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    The reason I didn't agree with that is because desperate people do desperate things, despite how clear and concise information available is. With every person had guaranteed, decent housing, food, comprehensive medical, decent clothing and other needs met, I may reconsider.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent