is this why you can "download your data" from social media app sites? to make it easier for a fed to grep for wrongthink after they make you give them your login and phone password?
extraction by whom? i dont buy that. i have "downloaded my data" before and it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences they have made about me, only what i have done on the site, and they know i dont live in the EU. i assume pretend GDPR compliance is just a handy excuse thought up by marketing, killing two birds with one stone. im sure i heard at least one absurd marketing claim that it was to "let you take control of your data."
> it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences they have made about me
I'm not an expert by any definition, but I would bet the reason to that is the market inferences are a result of the data they provide you, and isn't an independent datapoint, but rather an extrapolation of what they've collected.
Therefore, it could be argued that the marketing information isn't classified as something to provide.
Don't know how correct I might be, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of intellectual interest.
> i have "downloaded my data" before and it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences
Because they are not obligated to give them to you. They are probably not even in the same systems.
> and they know i dont live in the EU.
So what? They have the ability, should they revoke it based in the IP? Why? It's a selling point, without any additional price or harm for the company.
the data downloads i have done (that could be done by anyone with my unlocked phone and logins, such as US border forces) clearly do not even try to adhere to most of the clauses there (e.g. recipients of the data). tech companies dont try to apply GDPR outside of EU, but they are generally happy to give information to the police in all countries except china. i wonder if the chinese can download their data?
> And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.
The US gov wants to monitor the "attitudes" of immigrants to make sure they aren't "hostile" and deport them if they are.
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
Yeah but if you don't have social media, you're flagged as a weirdo and taken aside for a four hour interview. Miss your flight? Oh, too bad, mistakes were made.
That is just so dystopian, having to constantly play "role model citizen" instead of living your own life. Whatever happened to the "land of the free"?
is this why you can "download your data" from social media app sites? to make it easier for a fed to grep for wrongthink after they make you give them your login and phone password?
This is probably a joke but the reason is to comply with GDPR which requires companies to allow "easy" extraction of data they hold on you.
extraction by whom? i dont buy that. i have "downloaded my data" before and it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences they have made about me, only what i have done on the site, and they know i dont live in the EU. i assume pretend GDPR compliance is just a handy excuse thought up by marketing, killing two birds with one stone. im sure i heard at least one absurd marketing claim that it was to "let you take control of your data."
> it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences they have made about me
I'm not an expert by any definition, but I would bet the reason to that is the market inferences are a result of the data they provide you, and isn't an independent datapoint, but rather an extrapolation of what they've collected.
Therefore, it could be argued that the marketing information isn't classified as something to provide.
Don't know how correct I might be, I'm just playing devil's advocate out of intellectual interest.
> extraction by whom?
The user.
> i have "downloaded my data" before and it never includes any kind of analytic marketing inferences
Because they are not obligated to give them to you. They are probably not even in the same systems.
> and they know i dont live in the EU.
So what? They have the ability, should they revoke it based in the IP? Why? It's a selling point, without any additional price or harm for the company.
I don't know why its offered outside EU but GDPR has this requirement: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ (paragraph 3)
the data downloads i have done (that could be done by anyone with my unlocked phone and logins, such as US border forces) clearly do not even try to adhere to most of the clauses there (e.g. recipients of the data). tech companies dont try to apply GDPR outside of EU, but they are generally happy to give information to the police in all countries except china. i wonder if the chinese can download their data?
Possible same process gives additional data for EU users
> And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.
The US gov wants to monitor the "attitudes" of immigrants to make sure they aren't "hostile" and deport them if they are.
Like what the fuck.
> including those who might have “hostile attitudes” toward American “citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles.”
By that logic, the current administration officials should be deporting themselves. The irony.
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The thought police...
https://archive.ph/VwQ9y
Yet another good argument to stop using social media
This seems like the wrong reason to curtail your own speech.
Yeah but if you don't have social media, you're flagged as a weirdo and taken aside for a four hour interview. Miss your flight? Oh, too bad, mistakes were made.
That's why you create an account for yourself that shows a lot of interest in the local sports team.
That is just so dystopian, having to constantly play "role model citizen" instead of living your own life. Whatever happened to the "land of the free"?
Sent to a gulag in El Salvador... Oh, too bad, mistakes were made.