this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
288 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
60528 readers
5783 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
Of course it is protected.
Membership is not protected status, any company could publish their membership roll unless their agreements specifically say they cannot and that's very rare.
No they can't. Please stop making stuff up. Please stop the lies. You're spreading misinformation.
Pornhub cannot go around publishing info about specific accounts holders, such as their name and job.
It's actually insane that you think that's the case.
Yes the fuck they can. Point to a single law that says they can't.
I'd say the same to you.
The only thing that can't release is what is protected. Ssid, dl, address, medical into, disability status, so on so forth.
Your membership is not protected at all in any way especially with porn sites you have no contract with you.
It's fucking insane that you don't know it's both legal and happens constantly, there's an entire industry and economy based on data scraping to find and release non protected information because of both profitable and legal.
Youd think a ferangi would know the rules of business at least we'll enough to know what you can skirt and what you can't rom of keldar.
You are so wrong. Companies cannot just release personally-identifiable data about people. You're being crazy if you think they can.
Information that can be used to identify an individual cannot be shared without consent.
Publicly outing specific people with their names falls under that.
It's hilarious how wrong you are.
I am curious if anyone with some legal knowledge can weigh in. My messy google search only pointed to one federal law, the FTC act, that would allow the FTC to intervene if a website breaks its own privacy policy. Otherwise US privacy laws are industry specific. (E.g. there is a set of laws for healthcare related data, HIPAA. There are other ones for some financial institutions.) So on a federal level they would have the FTC to worry about, maybe.
What complicates this is that multiple states have their own data privacy laws, and I don’t know what a company based in one state with data from users in other states has to do.
Bingo. You need a contract that says your membership/username is included in the privacy policy. Barring that they're free to release membership rolls as they please they just can't release protected information.
It's why multiple emails, VPN and phony personas are so prevalent these days.
Point. To. A. Single. Law.
One. Uno. A singular law.
Point to a single law.
Go on. Show me a law where it says companies publicly sharing personally-identifiable information about users without their consent is fine.
Laws prevent they do not allow, you're asking for something you know doesn't exist to avoid having to admit you can't find a single law that says it is illegal dispite arguing at length that it is.
It does exist.
You cannot publish personally-identifiable information about your customers.
Please stop lying.
Pornhub cannot go around naming and shaming specific users without consent.
Yet you can provide it, weird huh. Rule of acquisition #237 of they can't point to a law, there is no law. Do better rom.
We already went over this, protected information is unsurprisingly protected. Your name and membership is not pii in most cases unless protected by their privacy policy.
They absolutely can if it isn't included in the policy, there is no federal law protecting membership rolls. None.
Yet you can't prove it. Interesting. So strange.
You cannot publish personally-identifiable information about your customers.
We already went over this.
Data protection laws exist, and you cannot publish information about specific customers online for the world to see.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Pornhub won't do this. I get that you want them to break the law, but they won't.
Is not strange at all you're adding me to prove a negative that can't be proven.
We just went over that again for the third time no you can't. Your name and membership is not pii.
Awesome point to one that allow l makes it unlawful federally.
Ed: you'll notice I didn't say they would, nor that they could just that it isn't federally illegal to do.
Of course it can be proven. You said it's explicitly exempted. So prove it. You can't.
Companies cannot publish personally-identifiable information about their customers without consent.
Unless it's explicitly exempted in policy, companies are held to their own privacy policy federally. You should actually read what I write rom.
We know they can be released because of the unamerican acts commission specifically requesting membership rolls and the subsequent supreme court case saying they can be disclosed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/disclosure-of-membership-lists
There are federal rules of disclosure as to 501c3 and charitable organizations but pornhub and in fact most businesses are not 501c3 nor charitable.
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.