zlacker

>>wut42+(OP)
> “This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day,” said Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

If companies would respect the spirit behind GDPR and not store data that is not needed to fulfill a user's requests and protect the data that they must have in a way that makes dragnet searches impossible, this would not be a problem.

Instead, we have sites not being ashamed in informing you about literally thousands of external ad broker, tracking, notifications and whatnotelse integrations.

To u/decremental: you seem to be shadowbanned, here's an Archive link: https://archive.ph/kAXQ1

>>mschus+k3
> If companies would respect the spirit behind GDPR and not store data that is not needed to fulfill a user's requests and protect the data that they must have in a way that makes dragnet searches impossible, this would not be a problem.

Saving user watch history is useful for users. Sure, make it optional, but I find it really useful that youtube shows me if I've already watched a video, and that I can find recently seen videos in my watch history.

>>loeg+k5
There should really be levels of history. I don't want youtube keeping every video I've ever watched on file, so I have history off. However, now, if I leave a video and come back to it the next day, my place in the video is lost. Lemme specify the length of time to keep history pls.

>>boppo1+n6
Why does allowing them to store your watch history mean that they MUST also share it with 3rd parties?

Why isn't "I want _you_ to know but I don't want you to use it against me." an option?

>>kvmet+M7
Because dollars.

Being able to sell histories means being able to sell supposedly more effective ADS. Also shows ads were viewed and by whom.

Precision of any kind in demographics is worth a lot of money.

>>ddingu+N8
As far as I can tell this is just the truth, so I'm curious who downvoted and why. Guilty consciences?

>>CatWCh+Hb1
It conflates data collection with selling data. Google, Meta, etc do not sell their users' data (for purely commercial reasons).

>>loeg+hk1
the ol' "hashed minutae" and "in aggregate" chestnut. Meta at one point allowed you to target ads to a specific person (nevermind the cambridge analytica stuff.) Google is in the business of selling time, eyeballs, and mindshare to advertisers.

Google and meta (et al) receive money in exchange for the info of their user base. That they're playing 3 card monte (shell game?) with the data to "hide PII" - which has been mathematically proven to be impossible (currently, perhaps forever) seems a hair not worth splitting, considering their market caps.

Put simply, if there wasn't a financial reason to do the data collection google would simply not do it. You don't get rich shareholders by writing a lot of checks to seagate.