this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
287 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
60560 readers
3509 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hahaha there's a big difference between a court ruling that you have to provide member lists to the courts if they request it, and "companies are allowed to freely publish personally-identifiable information about their users"
Jesus. That's the best you can do?
There's not it establishes they are not protected and are in fact releasable.
Laws don't tell you what you can do they tell you what you can't do. Point to a law that says you cannot release membership rolls, you won't find one and the fact you still haven't says oh so much.
Citing a source? No, that's one more step then you've done huh? Let's see your citation perry Mason.
No it doesn't. It states they have to give it to the courts.
Courts wanting access to information to do their job != "Sure, go and publish personally-identifiable information about your customers"
You've still been unable to show that companies can go around publishing information about specific users without their consent.
It started they aren't private.
It's not illegal guy.
I have. You want me to have you a law that tells you what you can do, those don't exist at all. No law says what you can do. The fact you can't find a single law that states it is illegal is the best evidence that it is not in fact illegal. Surely if it's so correct you are beyond reproach that we must simply take it on your word you could easily provide evidence to back your position.. You haven't because you can't.
Grow up.
No it didn't. It stated they had to give them to the court.
No, I'm asking you to show me where it says personally-identifiable information, such as names, are fine for companies to broadcast publicly.
Why can't you provide this proof?
Grow up. Data protection laws exist. Companies can't go round posting information about specific users, no matter how much you and your school friends think it would be a funny way to, like, totally own those politicians brooo.
Because they aren't private.
Name alone is not in itself pii but membership specifically is not private unless it's in their privacy policy.
Because that's not how the law works bud.
Awesome, point to one that says membership rolls are protected. You can't find a law and you can't be original, why am I not surprised.