- Joined
- Jan 22, 2017
- Messages
- 14,815
- Reaction score
- 22,685
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I've posted about this many times on this forum, but mass data collection really is a huge threat to society. Ads and selling the data to scammers are maybe the least worrying uses. We have already seen advertising profiles sold to influence elections and voting patterns like in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Making the mass collection and profiling of consumers illegal is one of the most necessary pieces of legislation that needs to be passed our democracy and society.The show’s main segment concerned data brokers, the companies that collect your digital data, package it, and sell it to anyone who’s interested — sometimes in bundles based on shared characteristics. Real names of these bundles include “Ambitious Singles,” “Couples With Clout,” and “Kids and Cabernet.” Oliver pointed out that the names also sound like “immediately green-lit shows on TLC.”
Thing is, brokers group people in far less fanciful ways — according to their medical ailments, for instance. Or as “Suffering Seniors” and “Help Needed—I Am 90 Days Behind With Bills.” Last year, Epsilon, one of these ghoulish companies, was forced to pay $150 million in penalties because they’d knowingly sold the data of 30 million people to scammers targeting seniors.
Hilarious. Honestly I'm almost hope they don't pass anything because I want to see the data they got a hold of. John Oliver yet again putting his platform to incredible civic use.He and his staff paid for the data of a subset of individuals with traits that a lot of Congressmen have, and who were online within five miles of the Capitol building. Though Oliver was cagey about what they found, he indicated they were able to identify several specific lawmakers and their potentially problematic search histories. But he didn’t reveal anything more than that. Instead, he indicated that his preferred solution was for lawmakers to pass laws making the release of that kind of personal info illegal.
Oh thank god, the mega-corporations had the forethought to make sure to legalize their immoral and socially destabilizing activity before engaging in it.Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
He's not targeting anyone specific, so I'm not sure he can effectively extort someone who doesn't know what he has, if anything, and who hasn't been presented with the information or a definitive "quo". He's addressing 535 people, and I presume the overwhelming majority don't have problematic publicly available data.Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
Oh thank god, the mega-corporations had the forethought to make sure to legalize their immoral and socially destabilizing activity before engaging in it.
It's definitely not comedy speech and I hope he leeks the data if they come after him.
Shady? Maybe somewhat immoral but the real shady people are those who sell the information to the data brokers to being with. And he did not promise not to release it. I just watched the episode and nowhere does he say "pass legislation or else".John Oliver Blackmails Congress With Their Own Digital Data
The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host paid shady brokers for lawmakers’ digital histories — promising not to release the info so long as Congress passes legislation protecting all consumer…www.rollingstone.com
"The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host paid shady brokers for lawmakers’ digital histories — promising not to release the info so long as Congress passes legislation protecting all consumers’ data"
But he did show how fast congress can move to keep their video watching data out of people's hands LOL. When someone asked to see a judges rental history congress was very quick to create a law banning that practice.I've posted about this many times on this forum, but mass data collection really is a huge threat to society. Ads and selling the data to scammers are maybe the least worrying uses. We have already seen advertising profiles sold to influence elections and voting patterns like in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Making the mass collection and profiling of consumers illegal is one of the most necessary pieces of legislation that needs to be passed our democracy and society.
Hilarious. Honestly I'm almost hope they don't pass anything because I want to see the data they got a hold of. John Oliver yet again putting his platform to incredible civic use.
John Oliver Blackmails Congress With Their Own Digital Data
The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host paid shady brokers for lawmakers’ digital histories — promising not to release the info so long as Congress passes legislation protecting all consumer…www.rollingstone.com
"The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host paid shady brokers for lawmakers’ digital histories — promising not to release the info so long as Congress passes legislation protecting all consumers’ data"
I've posted about this many times on this forum, but mass data collection really is a huge threat to society. Ads and selling the data to scammers are maybe the least worrying uses. We have already seen advertising profiles sold to influence elections and voting patterns like in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Making the mass collection and profiling of consumers illegal is one of the most necessary pieces of legislation that needs to be passed our democracy and society.
Hilarious. Honestly I'm almost hope they don't pass anything because I want to see the data they got a hold of. John Oliver yet again putting his platform to incredible civic use.
I really don't care if it is legal or not, though I'm sure they did their research before conducting such actions.Leaking the data would be legal. Im not sure extorting the US govt is though.
He hasn't identified a specific individual to extort, so "may possibly extort some nonspecific person in the future" isn't going to hold up in court.Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
Leaking the data would be legal. Im not sure extorting the US govt is though.
He doesn't appear to have reached any legal definition of extortion, and I suspect HBO's lawyers are savvy enough to know exactly where that line is.I do think that there is a problem with this aggregation of personal data through data mining and packaging. The 4th should be expanded to include our digital footprints as part of our papers.
But I'm not sure extorting Congress is a good way to go about it.
I don't know. Extortion is typically defined by inducing someone to act in a way they would not by threat of doing something illegal to them. "Give me money or I will burn your business to the ground" is classic extortion.
Is releasing information that they agreed could be sold and used by third parties by the Terms of Service Agreements they signed extortion? I don't think so.
It is no more extortion than saying "If you do not pass X law, our Super-PAC will support your rival in the primary."
I really don't care if it is legal or not, though I'm sure they did their research before conducting such actions.
Aren't you a libertarian? Who cares if we pressure our politicians into passing privacy laws that protect us from corporations and the government.
If you don't support laws protecting civil and individual liberties, then you don't support those rights. Since you don't think the government should have laws protecting our liberties I'm sure you are against the grave government overreach protecting freedom of speech or the 2A.A libertarian doesnt pressure people in passing MORE Laws.
If you don't support laws protecting civil and individual liberties, then you don't support those rights. Since you don't think the government should have laws protecting our liberties I'm sure you are against the grave government overreach protecting freedom of speech or the 2A.
Seriously, I'm not sure how you've managed to turn the government passing a law that would limit it's own ability to collect data on private citizens as excessive government lawmaking.
I don't know. Extortion is typically defined by inducing someone to act in a way they would not by threat of doing something illegal to them. "Give me money or I will burn your business to the ground" is classic extortion.
Is releasing information that they agreed could be sold and used by third parties by the Terms of Service Agreements they signed extortion? I don't think so.
It is no more extortion than saying "If you do not pass X law, our Super-PAC will support your rival in the primary."
Oliver has a crew of lawyers, they would not have allowed this if it was illegal…He hasn't identified a specific individual to extort, so "may possibly extort some nonspecific person in the future" isn't going to hold up in court.
Edit: Also, a quick google suggests that gaining "money or property" is part of the extortion definition, and this doesn't apply here. I'm not a lawyer though and some other specific statutes may apply anyway.
Edit2: I suppose the proposed legislative action could be interpreted as "affecting interstate or foreign commerce" so may fit the extortion criteria but we're stretching.
Since it is a well known fact that <SARC>each and every single Representative and Senator is a highly ethical, totally honest, morally irreproachable, person who has never done a single thing in their entire lives that could even remotely be twisted so that it sort of resembles something that looks like it might be similar to an action that even the most upright and puritanical person in the United States of America could potentially find even slightly less than 100% laudable</SARC>, I don't see what the problem is.Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
Yeah, I'm certain they went over every line of the script with a microscope. They didn't shoot this from the hip.Oliver has a crew of lawyers, they would not have allowed this if it was illegal…
And he has good lawyers, unlike a certain ex president who has left a trail of disbarred lawyers behind him…Yeah, I'm certain they went over every line of the script with a microscope. They didn't shoot this from the hip.
Even lawyers with experience specifically with "things you can get in legal trouble for broadcasting" because, well, HBO.And he has good lawyers, unlike a certain ex president who has left a trail of disbarred lawyers behind him…
I think they'd have to specifically target individuals rather than vaguely mentioning that some people they had yet to identify in the capitol were in the folder.Unlike collecting data, isnt such extortion actually illegal? Sounds like a textbook quid pro quo, but since its Oliver, it may fall under some sort of comedy speech.
I don't know. Extortion is typically defined by inducing someone to act in a way they would not by threat of doing something illegal to them. "Give me money or I will burn your business to the ground" is classic extortion.
Is releasing information that they agreed could be sold and used by third parties by the Terms of Service Agreements they signed extortion? I don't think so.
It is no more extortion than saying "If you do not pass X law, our Super-PAC will support your rival in the primary."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?