• kattenluik@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    1 year ago

    They shouldn’t be monitored either way in my opinion as it’s just a bunch of links, but especially not while still private.

    Ultimately I don’t think it quite matters if it technically is bookmarks or “collections”, they seem clearly used in the same manner in this case.

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      104
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t care if you’re mad about it like I said. I just care about accuracy. The person in the screenshot and this thread’s title are both inaccurate.

      • kattenluik@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t ever indicate I was mad, I simply stated my opinion. We already know it is inaccurate as you shared this in your original comment.

    • blendertom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t. They are made from links that appear in Google search results. Google is notifying the person that the link you’ve saved is being removed. Therefore it will be removed from your collection as well.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eh… the ultimate question, what if it’s a collection of CSAM links?

      Some moderation is fine, especially when it can be shared pretty easily. This isn’t private bookmarks, it’s “private” bookmark collections.

      Edit: For those downvoting, this is the same concept as a private Reddit/facebook community. Just because it’s “invite only” doesn’t mean it’s free from following the rules of the whole site.

      • Ret2libsanity@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        CSAM is never an excuse to violate everyone’s privacy.

        I hate seeing people implying that it is. It’s no better then Patriot Act B.s that took away privacy in the name of catching terrorists.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          This once more reminds me of the guy in Sweden who got assaulted by police, in his bed, because an American institution searched through his Yahoo mail and found pictures and videos of him and his 30 year old boyfriend and incorrectly flagged it as CSAM, and then forwarded it to Swedish authorities.

          There was no justice after that. No repercussions for either the Swedish police or the American government, and no damages paid to the guy.

          Could this sort of surveillance stop abuse of minors? Yeah absolutely, but at what cost?

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, absolutely. That’s literally what I said. In fact CSAM should come bundled on every single electronic device. Then it won’t be a problem anymore.

              Of course not. My comment was in response to the discussion about companies going through private emails and the like (which I recognise the original post isn’t about, but that’s what this conversation turned into) and how I take issue with that. You might argue that we have no right to privacy when we use products like gmail and whatnot, which would be a fair argument if they didn’t already dominate the market.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          When those links are hosted on Google servers, publicly available to anyone handed the link to them?… how is that a private space?

          This isn’t reaching into your phone and checking the information you store on it, this is checking links you added and shared with others using their service. They absolutely have the right to check them.

        • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The fact that you think “privacy” existed even then is telling. The only thing that changed in that regard with the so-called Patriot BS is whether the gov’t could do it without the guile that otherwise had been SoP for decades. 🤦🏼‍♂️

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Private has various meanings in various contexts. If I take you to the private booth at a club, does it mean I’m allowed to slap around the waiter? No, of course not because rules still apply in private places hosted by a third party.

          If you want privacy in the context you explicitly mean, you shouldn’t be using anyone else’s hardware to begin with. If you expect any third party company to be fine with posting anything on them, you’re gonna have a bad time.

          For example, how many lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

          • ddnomad@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.

            We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.

            For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

            Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

              /sigh

              How many file hosting services let you share pirated data, publicly?

              Before you start in on “it’s not the same” it absolutely is. It’s private data, which is being shared through a link publicly. Just like bookmark collections.

              And once that file has been identified as piracy, it is very often fingerprinted and blacklisted from not only that instance, but all instances past, present and future.

              That’s essentially what is going on here.

              • ddnomad@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Scary illigal content here

                I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

                Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

                Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

                  Because they can? Unless your argument is that a third party site should be forced to allow anything that isn’t illegal, or a slur, I’m not really following your train of thought here.

                  • ddnomad@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My point is that you should not excuse big corporations for clearly overstepping their bounds when it comes to moderation (as in “minority report” style moderation).

                    For Google, it would probably be even cheaper to only check URLs in collections that were shared with anybody, at a point the owner attempts to share them. Instead, they preemptively hide them from you, because “this set of characters offends us”.

                    This is something people should be angry about, not find an excuse for.