Google almost rabidly doesn't want to connect who is sponsoring with what they're sponsoring.
I'm an ad network that does (some) tracking of users. I make it a point to connect advertisers with the publishers I work with because I know all of my publishers. I think this service has value.
Whilst I charge substantially more than Google does, I'm confident I don't participate in any ad fraud. If a Google rep. suggests they don't serve ad fraud, let me know, because I have proof otherwise.
... but: The truth is, it's just a cookie that is held by people who visited pages about cats, and people who like money.
There isn't and this is what many people do. But that isn't the argument is it? Can you tell me why observing what people do on my website is unethical and why it should be made illegal?
Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone else if I didn't enter into a contract with them specifying that was the case?
If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Put another way, if someone shows you a photo, who does the memory of that photo belong to?
Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server?
> If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to?
Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances.
Yes the EU invented a new right for its citizens which is the prerogative of the EU because of their bastardized idea of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is a basic human right, that much is obvious. There is no human right however to be forgotten and there is no human right to not be observed when you are in public.
>Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances.
The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully.
Maybe not technically, but in practice, yes. You may be able to keep them, but you can't actually open and view them. As per MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., loading something into RAM counts as copying, so you need a license to do that. And even if you had one once, it can be revoked (not all licenses are non-revokable).
A valid point - the rights only address the USE of the photos. You can use them privately all you want and would not have to delete them (unless ordered by a court for whatever odd legal reason such as if they were stolen not uploaded).
The difference with personal info is that the lawmakers saw two choices: prevent the use or the keeping of the data. They chose to outlaw the keeping of the data - which is why this law is huge, invasive and clumsy. But it’s also the only reason it makes a difference at all imho. I don’t trust anyone to keep the personal data of millions of people safe.
For example, if I order pizza, the business (obviously) needs to have my delivery address; however, that obvious reason only applies for the actual delivery, and if they want to use that same address also for, say, direct marketing, then that's a separate use that's not covered and would (generally) need additional opt-in consent.
Which is not true. Under the GDPR, you are not allowed to "process" any data unless you have a legal ground for doing it. One such legal ground is consent, but it can be withdrawn and so at that point you need to "stop processing". The thing is, "processing" is a broad term and includes not just storage but basically anything that happens to the data. So even use is not allowed.
I don’t see the connection between what’s a right and what’s a law here. If a majority of people want something they tell their lawmakers to turn it into law. It’s not a fundamental human right it’s a law like any other.
Good analogy! They belong to the person who took them, as per copyright law, not to the owner of the laptop.
Loading into RAM counts as copying, for which you need a license.