Friday, September 30, 2016 • Midnight Edition • "We put the "O" in OCD."
Advertisement
YouTube: be careful what you watch
Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*
*Membership spots not really limited!
Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*
*Membership spots not really limited!
|
||
|
|
||
|
My actions in my home are private. Until I utilize things like phones or internet to go outside my home. |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
Or until you have facial recognition software installed in your cable box so the TV knows who's watching what... or until Google decides to use it's microphone 'sniffing' software to catch keysounds to sell to advertisers. |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
However, if you choose to order On Demand movies, including porn, that's not private. That's a record between you and Cable. a business record that someone can retrieve if relevant to a court case. It's better than the taxes I pay and how much I paid for my home. That's a public record anyone can look up. 
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
That's the trick with privacy: It's never a total right. Even the things you do inside your own home can be breached, if the public interest is high enough. Currently, especially for the internet, I think our laws and protections are lagging behind what they actually should be, mostly because the current laws and rulings have never considered this form of communication, where you can do so many things that previously required you to leave your home and the greater privacy protections it offered. Phone conversations do have a greater amount of protection, both civil and constitutional, but breaching those protections is easier than penetration the 4 walls of your home. I think it's only a matter of time before more internet privacy laws and cases develop that begint to extend traditional privacy concept to shop/work/surf at home actions. |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
Don't you think it should be a case by case basis- not a "everyone who has ever logged into youtube" affair? |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
That's the problem I have, that it appears to be so sweeping and includes all information. I think maybe the story was a little premature, though, because the Youtube lawyer guy says that they are going to try and redact the private information. |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
IIRC, the only thing that is an identifier is the IP Address. and google themselves, in their own FAQ for users, said "Don't worry, that's not usually an identifier" or something like that and that's what the judge seized upon. In this case, google kinda messed up. |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
so- now google decides what's private information and what isn't? |
||
leave a comment with facebook
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Earth-2 NoctourneM, Liam Moorhart, MSNbot Media and 33 guests
Follow Us
Ads:
| Advertisement |
|---|
|
|
