Meet antifa's secret weapon against far-right extremists

[Astro420]

You are arguing for the equivalent of walking in public and demanding people don’t look at you.

Im not arguing for anything, but if you want to compare it to something, it would be more like "walking in public and demanding not to be photographed".

I simply believe in privacy rights and collecting public information without someone's consent is illegal in the EU.

[Machismo]

Yes, since you post that information publically with a certain purpose. Otherwise two-party consent laws would be silly.
It is also protected under GDPR.

Can you cite exactly where such things are protected under GDPR?

[Astro420]

Can you cite exactly where such things are protected under GDPR?

http://lexindicium.com/2018/03/19/da...pr-compliance/

[Felya]

It is also protected under GDPR.

No, it’s not. GDPR has nothing to do with a random person using the shit you posted for their means. GDPR covers how companies handle your information, it has nothing to do with random people using said information.

- - - Updated - - -

http://lexindicium.com/2018/03/19/da...pr-compliance/

Where is this random guy supposed to disclose how he is using information you posted? Stop it...

[Zython]

If an employer has the right to not be associated with racists, then so does everyone else. What if someone shows up as a false positive on this list? Is he then associated with racists until the end of his life? What if only personal information is released to the public/employer, not the content of their posts.


People have a right to privacy(even alleged racists) and if they do not want to appear on any non-governmental organization's list (and if it's governmental, they should have a legal reason to store your data), they shouldn't be required to do anything. If someone wants to put people on a list, they should request affirmative consent from that person while informing them of the specifics, such as the purpose of the data gathering and length of time for which the data will be stored.

Thank god we have GDPR protections and shit like this is highly illegal in the EU.

I think the problem here is that you’re viewing this as a Discourse(TM) issue, rather than a public health issue. The people in question are not only committing acts of horrendous violence against minorities, up to and including mass shooting, but are also using their positions of power to help facilitate these acts. Exposing them massively hinders the efficacy of their agenda, which is mass deaths.

It's about who initiates violence, which AntiFa does a lot, and they do so in retaliation to someone attending/having a speech, which makes them, you know...fascist.

1. This is only the case if you view violence against minorities in abstract terms.

2. That’s not what fascism is.

[Machismo]

http://lexindicium.com/2018/03/19/da...pr-compliance/

As far as I can tell, that doesn't prevent her from doing what she does. This is specifically targeting marketing, and involves "personal data." Shes not the website, and she's not selling their personal data, at least that I can see.

[Felya]

Im not arguing for anything, but if you want to compare it to something, it would be more like "walking in public and demanding not to be photographed".

I simply believe in privacy rights and collecting public information without someone's consent is illegal in the EU.

No... it would be like walking in public and complaining that you are taking selfies in public, while others can see it. How exactly are you demanding no one look at information you post publicly?

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I can tell, that doesn't prevent her from doing what she does. This is specifically targeting marketing, and involves "personal data." Shes not the website, and she's not selling their personal data, at least that I can see.

I deal with shit like GDPR and RDP everyday... it has nothing to do with data you post, being used by site visitors. It’s all about how data is stored and notifying the user of data being stored. If you choose to post your personal data in public, GDPR cannot stop random people from using it.

[Machismo]

No... it would be like walking in public and complaining that you are taking selfies in public, while others can see it. How exactly are you demanding no one look at information you post publicly?

- - - Updated - - -



I deal with shit like GDPR and RDP everyday... it has nothing to do with data you post, being used by site visitors. It’s all about how data is stored and notifying the user of data being stored. If you choose to post your personal data in public, GDPR cannot stop random people from using it.

That's exactly what I thought, thanks.

[Yriel]

Sure, feel free to tell an employer that their employee is a former criminal. It doesn't need to just be migrants and refugees, do it for everyone.

By the same logic this professor should extend her database to include all kind of racists, not just right-wing ones...

[Machismo]

By the same logic this professor should extend her database to include all kind of racists, not just right-wing ones...

If you want to do that, then be my guest.

Your whining that right-wing extremists are getting caught being racist is clearly indicative of your sympathies.

[Endus]

My point was mainly that this is a case of "the ends justify the means" rather than "it's fine because it's just public information". Because if it was the latter, it would be fine regardless of the target. Perhaps this is a case where the ends actually do justify the means.

It isn't about the ends justifying anything. It's about the target justifying the means.

Same reason it's okay to lock up a mass murderer, but locking up innocent people is not. It isn't about the ends, at all, it's about who the means is applied to, and why.

Cause outside of work, with no connection to it, by a request from a third party? This is quite a stretch.

I think everyone should be allowed to an opinion and private life outside their work. If they bring it to work, sure, fire them, but outside of it, it is your life. How would that, in principle, be different from firing someone for following a religion or being gay?

Because being a racist is something you do, the others are something you are. In short. Also, the latter two examples harm nobody, while being racist is explicitly harmful to others. Being racist is also a demonstration of lack of character, which matters to employers.

Here there is a lot of crime here that migrants and refugees are committing and that is reported in regional newspapers.
How about i make a database with the names of all those people and send emails to all their present and future employees. That should be ok, too since they did the crimes and it is all accurate information, right? They are criminal fuckwads, right?

Where do you live and work that a criminal background check isn't fairly standard practice for a lot of jobs? I've literally had to go to the police station and pay money for them to pull up my information (or lack thereof) on that exact list, for potential employers.

If an employer has the right to not be associated with racists, then so does everyone else. What if someone shows up as a false positive on this list? Is he then associated with racists until the end of his life? What if only personal information is released to the public/employer, not the content of their posts.

Then they can try and clear their name. Where did I argue otherwise?

If someone wants to put people on a list, they should request affirmative consent from that person while informing them of the specifics, such as the purpose of the data gathering and length of time for which the data will be stored.

For data that you voluntarily made publicly available? Pretty sure you've already consented, by doing so.

It's about who initiates violence, which AntiFa does a lot, and they do so in retaliation to someone attending/having a speech, which makes them, you know...fascist.

First, that isn't even remotely what "fascist" means. You're just blatantly misusing the label.

Second, Antifa's initiation of "violence" is vastly overblown. Particularly in comparison to white supremacist fascists. Who don't just initiate violence, but have an increasing death toll for the numbers of people they've killed, pursuing their cause.

[Astro420]

As far as I can tell, that doesn't prevent her from doing what she does. This is specifically targeting marketing, and involves "personal data." Shes not the website, and she's not selling their personal data, at least that I can see.

She is collecting their personal data and passing it on to third parties. Also, GDPR applies to all uses of personal data (which is why it's called the GENERAL Data Protection Regulation).

No... it would be like walking in public and complaining that you are taking selfies in public, while others can see it. How exactly are you demanding no one look at information you post publicly?

- - - Updated - - -



I deal with shit like GDPR and RDP everyday... it has nothing to do with data you post, being used by site visitors. It’s all about how data is stored and notifying the user of data being stored. If you choose to post your personal data in public, GDPR cannot stop random people from using it.

Personal selfies are fine. If you intend to use a personal selfie for non-personal use, then you need consent from all parties. If you are handing that information to a third party, they have to ensure that you obtained that data legally and the third party has to notify the subjects. Not to mention that Megan Squire is a professor at Elon University and a fellow at CARR and this project is part of her research, which automatically disqualifies her actions as personal use.

[Machismo]

She is collecting their personal data and passing it on to third parties. Also, GDPR applies to all uses of personal data (which is why it's called the GENERAL Data Protection Regulation).



Personal selfies are fine. If you intend to use a personal selfie for non-personal use, then you need consent from all parties. If you are handing that information to a third party, they have to ensure that you obtained that data legally and the third party has to notify the subjects. Not to mention that Megan Squire is a professor at Elon University and a fellow at CARR and this project is part of her research, which automatically disqualifies her actions as personal use.

Exactly what personal data is she collecting? After all, she does not have admin privileges of those websites she's surfing. The only information she seems to have access to, is what those people are openly sharing.

Your link did not say what you claimed, because it's just a generic informational link. Where in the law does it state she cannot do what she is doing?

[Yriel]

Where do you live and work that a criminal background check isn't fairly standard practice for a lot of jobs? I've literally had to go to the police station and pay money for them to pull up my information (or lack thereof) on that exact list, for potential employers.

No thats really unusual here.
But besides that, doesn't employers usually check the social media of employees? So by the same logic this database is totally useless.

If you want to do that, then be my guest.

Your whining that right-wing extremists are getting caught being racist is clearly indicative of your sympathies.

Yep, i'm clearly a Nazi! You caught me Sherlock. Better write that professor and send some Antifa goons to trash my appartment.

I don't want anyone to play police. That is what the actual Nazis did before they came to power. If people, no matter what side, do anything wrong, go to the authorities and let them take care, like in a civilized society. And if they didn't do anything illegal then talk with them or ignore them. I don't want any people denouncing other people they don't like. We've seen enough of that in this country to know it never ends well.

[Machismo]

No thats really unusual here.
But besides that, doesn't employers usually check the social media of employees? So by the same logic this database is totally useless.



Yep, i'm clearly a Nazi! You caught me Sherlock. Better write that professor and send some Antifa goons to trash my appartment.

I don't want anyone to play police. That is what the actual Nazis did before they came to power. If people, no matter what side, do anything wrong, go to the authorities and let them take care, like in a civilized society. And if they didn't do anything illegal then talk with them or ignore them. I don't want any people denouncing other people they don't like. We've seen enough of that in this country to know it never ends well.

I didn't call you a Nazi, you are trying to act like a fucking victim.

You are literally whining that people are being held socially responsible as a consequence of their actions. You are upset that freedom of speech and freedom of association are a thing. Being a racist prick isn't illegal, so there's no need to get the government involved at all. Why are you so damned upset at the idea of free speech and freedom of association? I mean, clearly your whataboutisms showed why, I just want you to have the decency to admit to it.

[Ashenfury]

I deal with shit like GDPR and RDP everyday... it has nothing to do with data you post, being used by site visitors. It’s all about how data is stored and notifying the user of data being stored. If you choose to post your personal data in public, GDPR cannot stop random people from using it.

I would agree that something like this may not be the intended target of GDPR. However, GDPR does regulate collecting and processing personal data (which in this case would include any information that could make the target identifiable). Now, there are a number of exceptions, but I'm not sure if any of them would quite cover this. I guess you could claim that the purpose is "to perform a task in the public interest", but that seems unlikely to hold up.

[Astro420]

Then they can try and clear their name. Where did I argue otherwise?
Edit: Can a business can try and clear their name as well? Why does a business have a right to dissociation but a private individual does not? If a person can sue for slander/libel if their name was tarnished, a business can do the same?

How would you figure out if you even have to clear your name? You could be fired, shunned, ostracized without explanation. You could be blacklisted by [industry] companies and not even know about it.

For data that you voluntarily made publicly available? Pretty sure you've already consented, by doing so.

I hope I don't sound paternalistic, but since you're in Canada, it's understandable that you dont know how GDPR works.

GDPR requires consent that doesnt restrict the usage of the service, i.e. you should be able to opt out and still use the service. It also requires some specifics to storing your data, e.g. length of storage, specific use - if you consent to having your email stored for marketing, then the organization cannot use that email for data analytics without additional consent...etc. It also requires that all personal data of EU citizens is physically stored in the EU (which was/is an issue to some cloud providers).

Exactly what personal data is she collecting? After all, she does not have admin privileges of those websites she's surfing. The only information she seems to have access to, is what those people are openly sharing.

Your link did not say what you claimed, because it's just a generic informational link. Where in the law does it state she cannot do what she is doing?

http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/...tions-GDPR.htm

"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person; "

[Yriel]

I didn't call you a Nazi, you are trying to act like a fucking victim.

You are literally whining that people are being held socially responsible as a consequence of their actions. You are upset that freedom of speech and freedom of association are a thing. Being a racist prick isn't illegal, so there's no need to get the government involved at all. Why are you so damned upset at the idea of free speech and freedom of association? I mean, clearly your whataboutisms showed why, I just want you to have the decency to admit to it.

Because normal people can't be trusted with such mechanisms. If there are no checks and balances all kinds of shit can happen. Just look at the Pinterest thing where somebody put people and organisations they didn't like on some porn-blocklists. If you let something like that run rampant you will have innocent victims that have no chance of redeeming themselves.

[Astro420]

I would agree that something like this may not be the intended target of GDPR. However, GDPR does regulate collecting and processing personal data (which in this case would include any information that could make the target identifiable). Now, there are a number of exceptions, but I'm not sure if any of them would quite cover this. I guess you could claim that the purpose is "to perform a task in the public interest", but that seems unlikely to hold up.

"Public interest" usually means official authority, e.g. law enforcement. Before GDPR, that specific law remained and was "Interest in accordance to law" and it basically meant that you can store data without consent if you have a lawful requirement or interest, which means you can't withdraw consent from your bank and have your banking records deleted, but you can request to be removed from a marketing mailing list.

She could collect that data with a personal/household interest (organizing a party etc.)

[Machismo]

How would you figure out if you even have to clear your name? You could be fired, shunned, ostracized without explanation. You could be blacklisted by [industry] companies and not even know about it.



I hope I don't sound paternalistic, but since you're in Canada, it's understandable that you dont know how GDPR works.

GDPR requires consent that doesnt restrict the usage of the service, i.e. you should be able to opt out and still use the service. It also requires some specifics to storing your data, e.g. length of storage, specific use - if you consent to having your email stored for marketing, then the organization cannot use that email for data analytics without additional consent...etc. It also requires that all personal data of EU citizens is physically stored in the EU (which was/is an issue to some cloud providers).



http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/...tions-GDPR.htm

"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person; "

"Hi, my name is John, and I'm a racist."

"Hey, everyone, this is John, and he's a racist."

"How dare you!!!"

Nope, you are still not there.