[HN Gopher] Google's updated privacy policy states it can use pu...
___________________________________________________________________
Google's updated privacy policy states it can use public data to
train its AI
Author : firstSpeaker
Score : 148 points
Date : 2023-07-04 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engadget.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engadget.com)
| Takennickname wrote:
| If anyone thinks Google respects your privacy and this is an
| isolated incident then boy do I have news for you LOL
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's nothing. I changed my personal privacy policy to allow
| myself to use google's copyrighted source code. Because that's
| how it works.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| [dead]
| villgax wrote:
| There's no limit to such idiocy. I shall ingest everything public
| on Google properties coz scraping my website constitutes
| agreement to my conjured up licence
| 908087 wrote:
| [dead]
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Discussion from yesterday:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36577626
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I can't help but think all this brouhaha over web scraping is
| just a rehash over the web scraping panic of the 1990s.
|
| Put it behind a robots.txt or better yet a login.
|
| This battle was fought and won. I'm not going back to the bad old
| days.
| nicbou wrote:
| I want my website to be accessible to humans, and even indexed
| by search engines. I just don't want to be used as unpaid
| labour to train artificial intelligence.
|
| A bit like I will gladly build a bike for someone, but object
| to the bike being sold around the corner.
| puzzledobserver wrote:
| I mostly agree with you, but as a counter-point: How would
| one precisely draw the lines between search engines and LLMs?
| One provides mostly airtight attributions, and the other is
| famous for hallucinating citations. But this doesn't sound
| like a distinction that can be used as the basis for law?
|
| Or are you less concerned with their design and more
| concerned with their purpose? Providing citations is fine,
| but creating content is not?
| nicbou wrote:
| One brings traffic to the original work, supporting its
| creators. The other takes uses the creators' labour without
| giving anything in return.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| This was the same argument against search engines and in
| favor human curated hierarchies like original Yahoo and DMoz.
|
| How do you Wikipedia being used for products period, let
| alone used as data products, since that's also repurposed
| unpaid labor?
| nicbou wrote:
| Wikipedia hosts people's hard work and makes it available
| to the world.
|
| Search engines help connect people to the things they want.
| At least they mostly do.
|
| AI inserts itself in the middle and strips the creators of
| credit, recognition or income.
| Animats wrote:
| That just says what Google wants to do. Google's privacy policy
| has no legal effect on anyone not in a contractual relationship
| with Google.
| phoe-krk wrote:
| I guess they made the math and the probabilities and figured that
| it'll gain them more money to do this and accept the inevitable
| fines that come from this.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Of course they did. It was probably the primary factor. Google
| is a business looking to survive the technology impact of LLMS,
| not a tool to improve humans lives.
| firstSpeaker wrote:
| Likely true. Previously it was any attribution data that was
| the most valuable since advertising benefit from that. With the
| LLM and what comes next I imagine every bit of data, structured
| or unstructured, accurate or not, is going to have some value
| to someone somewhere.
| kmbfjr wrote:
| Okay, if that is we are going to play it.
|
| My personal web site that is essentially a doc page on numerous
| home lab projects and other technical writings, is going dark.
|
| I'm not training your new search algorithms so you can directly
| profit from my writings. I didn't seek payments prior to this,
| but now this is just plagiarizing my work.
|
| See ya
| tensor wrote:
| This is a non-story. Look at the actual changes. Nothing
| fundamentally new was added, but the language was broadened
| slightly in a completely unsurprising way.
|
| Language model -> AI model features -> product and features
|
| It just looks like their lawyers tidying up the words but the
| intention is unchanged.
| worksonmine wrote:
| Under what jurisdiction am I allowed to create a policy to use
| whatever I want however I want? Playing the devils advocate I
| have to assume their lawyers didn't just pull this out of their
| asses?
|
| Now I'm making a policy that I'm allowed to (ab)use Googles
| services however I want. They can find the policy themselves. God
| I hate Google.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| It's pretty crazy that changes in privacy policies apply ex post
| facto on data that was generated before the privacy policy
| change.
| hedora wrote:
| ... and also to people that do not use google services, and
| have never read their privacy policy.
| kdavis wrote:
| Generally this is already "the law of the land" in the US via the
| HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn precedent[1]. (IANAL)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
| elric wrote:
| We probably need a better definition of which data is "public".
| Simply being accessible doesn't cut it. I can look out my window
| and straight into my neighbour's bathroom. Is that public
| information? Same goes for information on the internet. Sure, my
| neighbour could put up curtains (and I really wish he would),
| much like people could restrict access to web pages, but I don't
| think a lack of protection should automagically imply public
| access. Much less public access for the profit of some multi-
| billion dollar corporation.
| tmaly wrote:
| what about Google books? Do they get a pass with this?
| bhickey wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Googl.
| ...
| prepend wrote:
| > I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's
| bathroom. Is that public information?
|
| Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming this
| (why we have paparazzi taking topless photos on people on
| private beaches from public vantage points).
|
| I think this is a feature, not a bug, as without a
| straightforward rule I don't know how society solves this
| without causing more harm. If something is public, it's public.
| Restricting you from looking in your neighbors open window
| isn't something that can realistically be "fixed." Other than
| if I don't want my neighbor to look in, I draw the blinds. This
| works for paupers and billionaires.
|
| If I don't want people to see things, I don't make them public.
| I can't set a limit of "only people making less than $20k are
| allowed to view this."
| humanistbot wrote:
| > Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming
| this
|
| In the US. It is different in the EU. I know HN is US-
| centric, but tech is global and there are more people in the
| EU than the US.
| adventured wrote:
| > but tech is global and there are more people in the EU
| than the US
|
| Why would population number be the determining factor on
| anything? The world obviously doesn't operate based on
| direct democracy. India having 1.4 billion people doesn't
| give it a greater ability to dictate anything vs the EU, US
| or China. It comes down to power (always will, always has).
| For example, the US - for now - has the ability to dictate
| certain things to China on trade restrictions, given the US
| technology advantage. China is a legitimate superpower
| economically, has four times the population, and yet the US
| can still do that.
|
| If the premise is consumer numbers: the US still has the EU
| beat even with fewer consumers, with a far larger, far more
| valuable economy.
|
| Besides all of that, naturally each country (or as a
| union), to the extent it can, will attempt to set its own
| rules for tech. The US will do so, the EU will do so, China
| will do so, etc.
| flangola7 wrote:
| I can't think of a better metric than individual count.
| halJordan wrote:
| What are the substantial differences? (I dont think there
| are)
| dawnerd wrote:
| What if someone leaks info is that public now? What if
| someone shares my private info without permission? Should
| Google be allowed to train on it? How would their systems
| know? What about pirated other illegal content? The lines are
| not quite as clear to computers.
| prepend wrote:
| IANAL, but leaking is a crime, accessing once public is
| not. There was a lot of this back during the height of
| Wikileaks where there were questions about reading
| classified material being a crime. It is, but once it's
| leaked, it is no longer classified, so public.
|
| So the crime would be on the leaker, not on Google for
| training on it.
| dawnerd wrote:
| But the question is should google train against it not if
| it's legal. Just because it's public doesn't mean you
| have the right to use it, I think that's the real
| question we'll need to figure out.
| snerbles wrote:
| IANAL either, but I have held a security clearance and
| this is very dangerous advice.
|
| Unless explicitly declassified the leaked information
| remains classified, and those who hold security
| clearances are legally required to avoid all classified
| information outside of their need-to-know [0].
|
| Now if you have _never_ held a U.S. security clearance,
| you 're less likely to be prosecuted but the history and
| precedent is murky [1]. The average Joe Sixpack checking
| out Wikileaks is _probably_ safe, but if I were a
| journalist publishing the next round of Pentagon Papers I
| would much rather have a small army of lawyers and a
| friend or two in Congress.
|
| EDIT - Google has federal contracts, so they are probably
| bound by similar agreements to at least make an effort to
| avoid any such leaks in their training data for public-
| facing models.
|
| [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-
| Policy/2010/1207/US-to...
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2017/03/22/521009791...
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > > I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's
| bathroom. Is that public information?
|
| > Yes
|
| Not in my country at least, but if you will I van suggest
| another exemple: does broadcasting a movie or a song through
| to the public make it public good? No. We have laws (highly
| variable between jurisdictions) that set the rules for these
| "published data", and they are actually dependent on manu
| factors including whether or not you're making money out of
| it (you can lend a DVD to your friend for free, but you
| cannot start a DVD-renting business without a licence from
| the copyright owners).
| prepend wrote:
| > broadcasting a movie or a song through to the public make
| it public good
|
| Movies and songs are copyrighted and can't be rebroadcast
| or copied without license. But viewing is perfectly legal
| and does not require a license.
|
| And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business without
| a license from copyright holders (assuming you bought the
| DVD). You can't start a dvd streaming business without a
| license.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Movies and songs are copyrighted and can't be
| rebroadcast or copied without license. But viewing is
| perfectly legal and does not require a license.
|
| That's exactly the point: "publishing" something only
| gives you some _limited_ rights (an in certain
| jurisdictions like mine, most of these rights are limited
| to individuals only, and organizations are excluded).
|
| > And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business
| without a license from copyright holders (assuming you
| bought the DVD)
|
| Not in my country, again.
| prepend wrote:
| What country are you in? It sounds unusual that you can't
| sell property that you've bought (a DVD).
|
| Publishing are rights for the publisher, not the viewer.
| As a viewer, I can view the material and don't have
| restrictions on whether I can remember it or not (ie, run
| it through an algorithm to train a model as part of the
| viewing).
| abwizz wrote:
| > paparazzi taking topless photos on people on private
| beaches from public vantage points
|
| this is illegal almost everywhere.
|
| e.g. in germany it is even illegal to take a picture of a
| person (one specific) in a public space without their consent
| (unless they are a person of public interest).
| tyfon wrote:
| It's the same in Norway.
|
| Taking a photo of a public square with a lot of people in
| it is still legal without asking everyone for consent. But
| the topless photo example would not be legal at all without
| consent or even just a photo where one specific person or
| small group is the focus.
|
| Edit: taking the photo itself might be ok in the latter
| case, but publishing it (like posting to facebook or a blog
| or forum) is not.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| What if you're on the beach and taking a photo of your
| kid and there's a topless woman in the background. Very
| common in Scandinavia. And if there are German tourists
| there, they might be completely naked.
| wukerplank wrote:
| Taking a picture vs publishing/selling a picture are
| separate issues.
| darkclouds wrote:
| I dont think so as Kate Middleton future Queen of England
| found out.
|
| ******Warning****** NSFW pictures of the future Queen of
| England at this URL -->
| https://theoutsidersadi.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/click-
| here-...
|
| The (UK) press get around the law, by reporting a story and
| then relying on the reader using search engines to get the
| information from other jurisdictions like I have just done
| here, located in UK, EU google servers, and where ever the
| wordpress server is located.
|
| It kind of makes me think, what is the point of law?
|
| You need a lot of money to fight these entities and fight
| them in multiple jurisdictions where relevant laws exist.
|
| What also makes a mockery of the legal system at least the
| Royal lawyers is, whilst Kate Middleton has some injunction
| to block press publication in the UK, they cant stop the
| search engines from publishing the data to users in the UK,
| as I have just demonstrated with the link above and the
| search term "kate topless holiday photo" and then clicking
| the images option!
|
| Now what if I meant "kate beckinsale topless photo" instead
| of "kate topless photo"? I just got someone elses topless
| photos without even expecting them, ie the future Queen of
| England.
|
| Are the Royal lawyers from the stone age, do they not
| understand search engines or do they buy the targeted
| filter bubble narrative highlighted by Eli Parsier in his
| Ted talk?
|
| I like German privacy, they even stood up to Google and the
| Streetview project, however Google have edited me from
| their Streetview images where I'm giving their car the bird
| as it drove past me so there is some human oversight, but
| they still have that data and refuse to hand it over via
| GDPR DSAR requests.
|
| To many big entities including the Police, fulfil GDPR DSAR
| requests by relying on being able to identify the
| individual using todays existing systems.
|
| If someone cant be identified, like my giving the Google
| Streetview car the bird in their streetview data, Google
| will say no data exists.
|
| Yet GDPR law doesnt address developing and future
| technology which will be able to identify me giving the
| Google Streetview car the bird if they run facial
| recognition over their streetview data.
|
| So the GDPR DSAR is useless law as is, although I havent
| read it, but I suspect Google's privacy policy is as well.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| so if I take a picture of my wife on vacation in germany
| with someone in the background I'm breaking the law?
| mxscho wrote:
| Not necessarily, as there are other exceptions to this
| rule. A person can also be "Beiwerk" [1] (=
| accessory/props) which in the context of personality
| rights means that you are not the main focus point of the
| picture.
|
| [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiwerk
| nicbou wrote:
| There are clear exceptions for people who happen to be in
| the picture.
| prepend wrote:
| As long as the photo is taken from a public location, it is
| legal almost everywhere.
|
| US [0] " In the United States, photographs that are taken
| for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy
| Constitutional protection under the right of free speech."
|
| Denmark [1] " you can almost without restrictions shoot
| anything as long as what you're seeing is visible from
| public property. You are allowed to shoot people, including
| police officers or other government officials."
|
| In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public
| locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in
| their home. " You can't take photos of people if it shows
| their helplessness.1 For example, you can't take photos of
| accident victims, drunk people or nude people without their
| permission."
|
| [0] https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-
| regardin...
|
| [1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-
| denma...
| onli wrote:
| > _In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public
| locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in
| their home. " You can't take photos of people if it shows
| their helplessness.1 For example, you can't take photos
| of accident victims, drunk people or nude people without
| their permission."_
|
| Not how I learned it. You can take pictures of public
| spaces as long as a specific person is not the focus of
| the picture. The other aspects, like the invasion of
| privacy when a person is nude, only come on top of that.
|
| The law around questions like this is not definitive, so
| a lot depends on recent court decisions.
| prepend wrote:
| The actual law is cited, so perhaps law changed since you
| learned it. Or you are just incorrect. According to
| German law and court decisions, it seems quite
| definitive. Although I know very little about German law,
| perhaps there's some local law that supersedes regional,
| national, and EU law.
|
| What I try to do is track to the actual source rather
| than relying on my own memory of things.
| onli wrote:
| I see no link for the [2] in your comment. I sincerely
| doubt I'm wrong about this, you can read about it for
| example here: https://hoesmann.eu/fotos-von-gebauden-
| personen-und-marken-i.... It also explains under which
| exceptions pictures of a single person can be valid
| anyway, without explicit permission.
|
| > _According to German law and court decisions, it seems
| quite definitive._
|
| That's impossible. Basically nothing is definitive in the
| german Medienrecht ;) Ok, not really true, but it's true
| that things can change and that it is a less defined area
| and you'd have to be really certain to know the relevant
| case law to be almost certain here.
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| The link you posted [0] states there are limitations on
| the use. Places where you would have a reasonable
| expectation of privacy are not allowed to be
| photographed. Like at an ATM or in a public restroom.
| prepend wrote:
| Indeed. There are limitations. Restrooms aren't public,
| they are places where privacy is expected. The link I
| posted describes how in the US it's perfectly legal to
| take a picture through someone's open window (as long as
| you don't trespass or do anything illegal to take it).
|
| My point isn't that there are no limitations on
| photography or use. My point is that if you make
| something public, people can view it and use it. And
| that's legal. People seem confused about this that
| somehow consent is required for use. Not for things
| publicly released. (In the US and many countries at
| least)
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep. Most of the books are also public, since anyone can borrow
| them for free in a library, but they're still protected by
| copyright. Same for movies and tv shows broadcasted over the
| air.
| zirgs wrote:
| They are protected by copyright, but anyone is free to learn
| from them.
| madhadron wrote:
| The fact that we call the curve
| fitting/optimization/compression that we do to fit machine
| learning models to input data "learning" is really
| unfortunate and leads to this kind of conflation.
|
| If we trace the path of how we ended up here, it's similar
| to how people incorrectly refer to loci of DNA as genes. We
| have behavior analysis where we speak of learning as the
| conditioning via the antecedant-behavior-consequence loop.
| There was the Hebbian theory of how the ABC loop manifested
| physically in neurons. Early neural net papers took
| inspiration from that that mechanism and called it
| learning.
|
| Meanwhile, actual learning is far, far richer than the
| Hebbian theory of synaptic strengthening, and has a lot
| more going on than just operant conditioning.
|
| So, please, it's time for everyone to stop pretending that
| the fact that ML inherited the word "learn" as a term of
| art for curve fitting has any philosophical weight.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| "Free to learn from them" isn't specific enough. The
| question is "in what ways are people free to profit off of
| them?"
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Even AI? :)
| zmjjmz wrote:
| Do believe that a human learning from a book is
| fundamentally different than training a model off of it,
| and thus should be regulated differently?
| mjr00 wrote:
| There have always been legal differences between a human
| doing something and technology doing the "same" thing.
|
| It's legal for me to go to a nude beach and stare at a
| topless woman. It's _probably_ legal for me to draw a
| picture of that topless woman and distribute it. It 's
| definitely not legal for me to take pictures of that
| topless woman with my phone and post them on the
| internet.
|
| It's legal for me to overhear a conversation you and your
| friend are having on a bus. It's legal for me to
| transcribe what I heard and post it online. In most
| jurisdictions, it's _not_ legal for me to record that
| conversation.
|
| Ingesting data for use in machine learning models is
| still too new to have any specific legislation around it.
| But the argument that the technology is just doing a
| thing that humans do has zero relevance.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >It's definitely not legal for me to take pictures of
| that topless woman with my phone and post them on the
| internet.
|
| This is legal. You can take pictures of anyone, nude or
| not in a public setting and post them anywhere.
|
| >It's legal for me to transcribe what I heard and post it
| online.
|
| This is murky. It's legal to take notes of what you've
| heard but that comes with all the pitfalls of hearsay.
| Legally, it's not treated as the human equivalent of
| recording because humans have no such equivalent.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| The first one is iffy.... probably depends on a country
| too. If you take a panoramic shot of the beach, and
| someone is randomly topless.. sure. If you take a
| telephoto lens and single them out, it's questionable,
| and in many countries, illegal. Same as with walking vs
| following someone, even in public... the intent is
| different, so is the legality.
| staticman2 wrote:
| If corporations are allowed to own AI there's a strong
| argument that it shouldn't be treated anything like a
| human.
|
| Humans aren't property so of course they should be
| regulated differently from AI.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Putting aside the fact that what we call AI today is not
| learning in the same way as humans. They operate on a
| VASTLY different scale compared to humans. On a good week
| I can read a book. A single book. A massively
| parallelised data centre can do that billions or
| trillions of times faster. Scale of effect (lacking a
| better phrase) must be considered.
| elric wrote:
| Sure, but there have been many copyright cases about
| plagiarism (in writing and in music). It's rarely cut and
| dry. There's a fine line between inspiration and
| plagiarism, which can only seemingly be settled in court.
| That approach is not feasible when dealing with the amount
| of data (and copyright holders) that Google gobbles up.
| zirgs wrote:
| Using AI is probably the most inefficient way to obtain
| copyrighted content. It's much faster to simply find the
| original image or text and copy that instead.
| tensor wrote:
| Maybe something like an extension of robots.txt. E.g. if your
| don't allow crawling then the data is not public. I think
| that's fair, after all if you want complete strangers to be
| able to search for it arguably you are asking for it to be
| public.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| I don't think the definition of public is even enough here.
| Open-source code is public but covered by specific licenses.
| That's still legally undefined, but there are already ongoing
| lawsuits.
| detourdog wrote:
| What is so crazy is this seem like a disincentive to publish
| and share ideas. If anything you say can be used in an AI
| against you... or the alternatively that is not your idea the
| AI came up with it... This has nothing to do with AI and
| everything to do with the crackpots in charge.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| Unfortunately it's not so easy. If I as a person (which is
| essentially just a biological neural network) can simply go
| to websites, read the content and use the information I
| gathered to create slightly modified new content without
| repercussions, who's to say that an artificial neural network
| should not be allowed to do that? Just because I'm not as
| fast? What if I hire 1000 workers in a low wage country to do
| it for me? As AI capabilities grow, this separation will grow
| even narrower in the future. There's no realistic way to
| differentiate web access for human purposes vs. AI purposes
| in the long run.
| morjom wrote:
| >Just because I'm not(...)
|
| It's because a human you can be accountable and can feel
| consequences, and yes, also because you aren't as fast.
|
| I feel like many people just equivalent "human brain and
| consciousness" with "neural network" way too quickly. You
| can't remove the human factor however much you try to
| equivelate(?) it with a program.
|
| (? = non english speaker)
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| But you _aren 't_ held accountable. At least not as much
| as LLMs nowadays. And speed is also irrelevant as stated
| above.
| detourdog wrote:
| As an individual I would like to use bots to do my
| websurfing. Where I see the the problem is large
| corporations using webscrapped ideas to patent/copyright
| ideas. IF the data produced by AI is as open as the
| webscrapped data that seems fine.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| If you produce code from reading stackoverflow or github
| for some company, it will also own it - not you. AI will
| only be faster at producing stuff for these companies.
| detourdog wrote:
| I'm not interested in code as much as other forms of
| human expression. Imagine having to convince the courts
| that you said something first no matter what the expert
| AI states.
|
| I still don't see it as an AI failure as a human failure
| in the use of sophisticated tools.
| salawat wrote:
| Yes there is.
|
| You can spin up more compute with a credit card. You can't
| make 1000 people in the same manner, nor can you _own_
| them.
|
| Lets be real here though. The only reason anyone is
| drooling over AI is because it potentially allows one to
| elide paying someone else, ehich means more money for them.
| evandale wrote:
| You can use your credit card to find and convince 1000
| people to do your bidding, why is owning them a
| requirement? You don't "own" the compute you spin up
| either, you're temporarily borrowing it.
| detourdog wrote:
| As the AI business model as a two prong approach. Create
| an idea generating system so complex one can legal elude
| responsibility, followed by rent seeking opportunities
| from the generated ideas.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Yes, God forbid we build powerful new tools that extend
| human knowledge, insight, and productivity in directions
| previously undreamed-of. Mah coppy rite is more
| important! Thereoughttabealaw!
|
| As usual in these scenarios, the only real injustice is
| that the people who tried to stand in the way will enjoy
| the benefits of progress in AI alongside those who worked
| to make it happen. So it goes, I guess.
| [deleted]
| 0xParlay wrote:
| Seems to be well defined and accepted in regards to Third Party
| Doctrine. Would be silly if AI were the motivation to
| reconsider what is "public" as opposed to the blatantly obvious
| run-around of the American bill of rights currently in use. But
| hey I'll take it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > "But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain"
| and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole
| article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot,
| clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college
| campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are
| unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that
| the article we used written by you was in very bad need of
| editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it
| will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a
| bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain,
| albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put
| some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never
| charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written
| pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"
|
| 13 years ago, we treated cookssource.com like they were rubes,
| but they were just too early and too small.
|
| _" The web is considered 'public domain'"_
|
| https://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1868736
|
| -----
|
| _A Follow-Up to "The Web is Public Domain"_
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20101112141752/http://www.cookss...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911977
| [deleted]
| karaterobot wrote:
| Is this something they can confidently define in a privacy
| policy? This feels like its proper scope would be legislation.
| Indeed, legislation which is very much unsettled and ongoing. My
| assumption is they'll do as much as the law allows, but if the
| law doesn't allow it, their privacy policy isn't going to make a
| difference.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-04 23:02 UTC)