I didn’t know reddit gave out the personal details of their users, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

  • Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I didn’t know reddit gave out the personal details of their users, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    You make it sound like they have a choice, or do so freely and willingly.

    The article is clear on that they don’t freely share without assessment though:

    Reddit wasn’t willing to go along with the request, at least not in full. The company objected, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate its users’ right to anonymous speech.

    Recent legal activity shows that Reddit doesn’t intend to automatically comply with all user information requests.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      That is one thing Lemmy is not good at: Protecting its users legally. No admin can be expected to hire a lawyer to fight off those companies.

      • Fisch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Lemmy is not storing anything for no reason tho, there’s no point in that without advertising. The only data they could hand over would be public anyway.

        • suppenloeffel@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          What?

          Lemmy instances can log IPs and any other info they want all day long, there is nothing stopping them. In some jurisdictions they may even be required to.

          • Fisch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Of course they can but what would be the point of that? It would just cost storage space.

            • Lodra@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              10 months ago

              An interesting discussion! You’re probably right about most Lemmy instances. But it’s entirely possible that some instances are running a modified version of Lemmy that collects more data. And only those admins will understand why. They could sell it as easily as any company.

              You need to trust your service providers or accept what they’re doing.

              • suppenloeffel@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 months ago

                Doesn’t even have to be malice. I’m sure that most instance admins are great, competent and caring, but setting up a Lemmy instance is trivial, securing it is not.

                The default configuration of a proxy could log connections, the config interface may accidentally be exposed unprotected and so on. Again, I’m not saying that most instances are inherently untrustworthy. But, depending on your instance, you are trusting one person or a small team of volunteers to stay on top of everything andyou can’t expect them to drain their bank accounts in case of legal issues for you.

                • Lodra@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Absolutely a good perspective on the surrounding infra! I fully agree. Thanks for sharing.

              • ___@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                CoW doesn’t mean your process won’t stop half way writing your movie file to disk if its improperly coded.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    “the movie companies would like to see comprehensive details of the subscriber’s torrenting history, including records of visits to The Pirate Bay. In addition, it seeks information on other social media profiles, where more relevant information might be found.”

    The problem is, legally, nobody is required to maintain that information. They can ask all they want.

    “I’m sorry, my browser history is deleted every time I close my browser. Problem?”

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not to mention, things like TPB history mean nothing. I can browse TPB all day, it’s neither illegal, nor does it prove I downloaded torrents.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unless you’re using a VPN, the ISP knows, and I bet they keep the records. Even if you’re using a VPN, they’ll know what VPN server you connected so the feds go after them instead.

      Depending on how many infringement claims they’re making against OP, and I’m assuming it’s a lot if they’re asking for info on a specific user and not a whole sub, well, good luck OP

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s an ask for the ISP though, in this case they’re asking the potential infringer who has no duty to cooperate.

    • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes. The same sentence you quoted has this at the end of it:

      “it handed over the personal details of one user last year.”