Yes – and not only for government and organizations:
> In 1999, NetBus was used to plant child pornography on the work computer of a law scholar at Lund University. The 3,500 images were discovered by system administrators, and the law scholar was assumed to have downloaded them knowingly. He lost his research position at the faculty, and following the publication of his name fled the country and had to seek professional medical care to cope with the stress. He was acquitted from criminal charges in late 2004, as a court found that NetBus had been used to control his computer.
Interesting. I was a student at Lund University in 1999. I vaguely remember hearing about a law professor getting caught with child pornography, but the exoneration never reached me.
This is where I feel like reporting goes terribly wrong. Failure to correct stories like this just cements the wrong idea. It's not slander, but it's like slander by omission.
It's as if bad news and boogie monsters sell better than "we reported incorrectly" I know, but still.
In this age of search engines and social media “amplification” a correction wouldn’t even be sufficient. The original story will always be more salacious than the correction, thus more widely shared and more likely to appear in search results (unless Google etc somehow weight the correction higher, I have no idea if they do)
Not before losing his career and having to flee his country, probably because his reputation was dragged through the mud. News of the acquittal doesn't travel nearly as far as the initial arrest - see sibling comment below.
It has been illegal at least since the Grand Chamber judgments on the cases of "Big Brother Watch" and "Centrum för Rättvisa" last year [0].
Though, really, the outcome was fairly predictable for anyone following the field.
TLDR; Continuous "General and indiscriminate retention" is not compatible with EU fundamental rights.
- Two wrongs don't make a right: Someone behaving unethical does not excuse unethical behavior from someone else.
- There is a difference in the power dynamics of the relationships: Consumer and service provider VS citizen and state.
If anything, laws and right should be strengthened to explicitly ban this behavior.
Whether people are convinced or not – your claim was that it provided "justification".
My point is that it does no such thing – it doesn't hold up as a valid argument (which really is the bare minimum for something to even be considered as potentially true).
You can't use the internet without risk. All you can do is measure relative risks and decide which are acceptable. Means, motive, and opportunity matter. Someone who is missing the motive portion is less of a concern than someone who has all three.
No one expects zero risk, it's about reducing risk. I choose to avoid American companies in favour of non-American competitors because the American government is hostile to privacy and is a warmonger.
90%+ of governments are more hostile to privacy than the US. It might make sense to prefer countries with GDPR, but the vast majority of "non-American countries" have even worse protections for your data.
> and is a warmonger.
This is flamebait unrelated to data privacy risk. If you don't want to use American companies because you have an political opposition to supporting US companies, that's also a valid opinion. You don't have to twist it into a data privacy argument.
> This is flamebait unrelated to data privacy risk.
It's not flamebait, it's a legitimate reason. A country who has been killing people in various wars/invasions is unlikely to behave ethically when it comes to privacy.
If you behave unethically in one area, I have every reason to assume that you'll also behave unethically in another area.
The number of governments that have not had to deal with ethics concerns is exactly zero.
Rather than drawing a broad hand-wavy link between ethics concerns and respect for privacy, you'd be much more accurate in measuring privacy by directly considering their practical legal frameworks that protect privacy.
> A country who has been killing people in various wars/invasions is unlikely to behave ethically when it comes to privacy.
This doesn't hold up. There are many countries that will straight up man-in-the-middle internet traffic with no oversight that have been at peace longer than Germany.
This is simply not factual, it is an information availability bias. America is one of the most publicized nations, and sunlight is one of the best disinfectants. By any academically rigorous measure, the US ranks high in ethics, along with most other western style democratic systems.
Tell that to the people that were killed by American military in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and probably other places I am forgetting.
A country like America that has been murdering people in many wars around the world without hesitation is unlikely to take my privacy seriously. They don't respect my right to live, do you think they will respect my right to privacy?
Maybe, but that doesn’t have any relation to the state of data privacy in a particular country. Most of the countries with almost no data protection at all (or laws that require your data to be compromised) don’t even have drones.
Cleave lets users persist OS state as a "context" - saving and loading all open applications, their windows (and their positions), tabs, open files/documents and so on. Think of it as a workspace or project manager from an IDE, but on the OS-level; Alternatively as "tab-groups", but encompassing multiple apps.
I started working on it because of frequent multitasking of heavy work with limited resources; Made it because I wanted to switch between studying, working, reading, looking for an apartment, etc. without manually managing all states or consuming all resources.
I'll release an Open Beta (macOS) as soon as I finish license verification and delta updates, but I keep getting sidetracked...
In the meantime, I've used various browser extensions to save and restore open tabs.
I find it interesting (particularly from an HCI-perspective) that there hasn't been more research into the concept on an OS-level, as I can think of many times maintaining a set of application states for continued or re-use makes sense.
Yes, if you mean true anonymization – i.e. not pseudonymization (e.g. replacing names with a pseudonym) or in any other way retaining personal data (internal identifiers, usage patterns or attributes that combined result in a unique enough fingerprint to identify a specific person, etc.)
Out of curiosity: How does any argument become more or less logical depending on its context?
Your comment reads to me as if the concept of logical fallacies is only useful or valid within the framework of rhetorical competitions – or alternatively that logically invalid reasoning is useful if you're only interested in making a decision, rather than making a correct or well-informed one.
Laws and law enforcement. We should demand our governments to make laws that make unauthorized (by the people themselves through a decentralized system) use of our data illegal. At least the more flagrant/large scale forms of abuse could be prevented that way.
Exactly – this is currently a regulatory problem, and blockchains, decentralized identity, etc. won't solve anything in this space. On the contrary, it will by definition enable identification in some types of data.
This makes me conclude that these types of solutions are really more about portability and making some sort of political point (the only thing users realistically control is first party authorization – nothing else); They certainly don't have any security or privacy-related guarantees.
> I wish the field of psychiatry was mature and used different words for depression caused by [...]
Isn't this covered by "situational depression" (adjustment disorder with depressed mood) VS "clinical depression" (major depressive disorder), and the fact that diagnosis entails excluding physical conditions that cause similar symptoms?
None of the various depressive disorders (nor other psychiatric disorders) deal with defining a cause, but with describing a set of symptoms.
There is a lower limit to privacy (as a human right) – which after passing, societies would seize to be "free" (liberal democracies?). But that's not a discussion people seem to want to have, when talking about their good intentions of fighting against horrible things.
> In 1999, NetBus was used to plant child pornography on the work computer of a law scholar at Lund University. The 3,500 images were discovered by system administrators, and the law scholar was assumed to have downloaded them knowingly. He lost his research position at the faculty, and following the publication of his name fled the country and had to seek professional medical care to cope with the stress. He was acquitted from criminal charges in late 2004, as a court found that NetBus had been used to control his computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBus