FiskFisk33

joined 2 years ago
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 30 points 5 months ago

Nah, a democratic nation has to follow its own laws. It looks much better if they revoke it with proof after due process.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 46 points 5 months ago (5 children)

did they expect any different? Why would anyone on Greenland be aligned with someone who threatened to invade you?

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 5 months ago

A few friends of mine used to have a sms-based group chat we used for many years. One of those friends kept losing phones and getting new numbers. At some point one of his older numbers texted something to the tune of "what the fuck is this, why are you texting me?!". It turns out the old number had been reassigned.

then again, no state secrets were exchanged.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What's the point of a summary that's longer than the article itself?

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

that is not the image you showed.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

they're a type of eagle candy.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

looks fine to me, the problem is on your end, or it's intermittent somehow.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago

Me neither. I would have thought this was exactly the kind of situation impeachment was meant to stop. I am thoroughly confused.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

two words: presidential pardon.

No one will spend the time, money and effort to prosecute these people when they can just wave the whole thing away with a signature.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

hmm, true enough. But in my mind there's a clear difference between showing information unedited and referring to its source, and this.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That's a good point, that muddies the waters a bit. Makes it hard to say wether it's spouting info from the web or if it's data from the model.

I can't comment on actual legality in this case, but I feel handling personal data like this, even from the open web, in a context where hallucinations are an overwhelming possibility, is still morally wrong. I don't know the GDPR well enough to say wether it covers temporary information like this, but I kinda hope it does.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

Maybe he has a insta profile with the name of his kids in his bio

Irrelevant. The data being public does not make it up for grabs.

‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’);

They store his personal data without his permission.

also

Information that is inaccurately attributed to a specific individual, be it factually incorrect or information that in reality is related to another individual, is still considered personal data as it relates to that specific individual. If data are inaccurate to the point that no individual can be identified, then the information is not personal data.

Storing it badly, does not make them excempt.

view more: ‹ prev next ›