Slashdot Mirror
British Startup Strip Mines Renters' Private Social Media For Landlords (washingtonpost.com)
Rick Zeman writes: Creepy British startup Score Assured has brought the power of "big data" to plumb new depths. In order to rent from landlords who use their services, potential renters are "...required to grant it full access to your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and/or Instagram profiles. From there, Tenant Assured scrapes your site activity, including entire conversation threads and private messages; runs it through natural language processing and other analytic software; and finally, spits out a report that catalogs everything from your personality to your 'financial stress level.'" This "stress level" is a deep dive to (allegedly) determine whether the potential renter will pay their bills using vague indicators like "online retail social logins and frequency of social logins used for leisure activities." To make it worse, the company turns over to the landlords' indicators that the landlords aren't legally allowed to consider (age, race, pregnancy status), counting on the landlords to "do the right thing." As if this isn't abusive enough, the candidates are not allowed to see nor challenge their report, unlike with credit reports. Landlords first, employers next...and then? As the co-founder says, "People will give up their privacy to get something they want" and, evidently, that includes a place to live and a job. In late May, an apartment building in Salt Lake City told tenants living in the complex to "like" its Facebook page or they will be in breach of their lease.
Tricky in the uk the current government has engeineered an intentional housing and renting bubble over 10% faster than wages. Which has been exaggerated by Chinese/russian magnates buying property just as an investment. If enough landlords like it you wont have a choice
“If you’re living a normal life,” Thornhill reassures me, “then, frankly, you have nothing to worry about.”"
The definition of "normal" is not for this company, or my landlord, to decide.
"Tenant Assured doesn’t give users any way to view their ratings or dispute misleading data."
I think Tenant Assured might find that European law has quite a different view on that.
But I am happy to create an empty Facebook profile and share it with my landlord. I'll even put a post up there about paying my bills on time, and getting an early night. No other data in there? I'm sorry, I don't use Facebook that much, and it's not compulsory to use Twitter, so I don't have anything to share with you there.
What does that mean? A landlord can't turn someone down without having to give a legal and adequate reason? Could a landlord have to defend a rejection of a tenant, in court?
The problem with bringing up terms like "legally defend" is the fact that it's going to cost someone money to do so. And likely more than they can afford. I'm willing to bet that the "target" audience for this are those who cannot afford to challenge this legally, which is almost as disgusting as the actions to destroy privacy detailed in TFS.
This needs to be shut down. The world needs to see this and respond. It's too bad most don't give a shit about privacy anymore.
Quite honestly, it's sad, because if a boycott of online services created an impact large enough (read: people would have to start giving a shit about privacy again), then social media owners would be the one legally challenging this. I'd love to see this piss-ant start up defend themselves against the social media giants.
Also, perhaps someone should dig deeper into this "start-up", because this almost smells State-sponsored. Can't think of too many other entities that would be data-mining like this.
Wow. I'm not on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Instagram, but I do have a twitter account. Which I only use for following porn stars and for trolling. Guess I won't be renting via any agency that uses this service ;).
In all honesty, I highly doubt this will stand up. In connection with employers asking for social media passwords of employees;
A spokesman for the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] said: "The UK Data Protection Act clearly says that organisations shouldn't hold excessive information about individuals, and it's questionable why they would need that information in the first place." [...] "In the UK, however, it would potentially put employers in breach of the Data Protection Act because it would constitute "excessive" information about an individual, the ICO indicated. "We would have very serious concerns if this practice was to become the norm in the UK," (article).
If that's true for employers, I'd say it's way more true for landlords and letting agencies, so I'd expect the ICO to have a few things to say on this. Seems like a probable violation of the Data Protection Act.
Oh no... it's the future.
Has this startup started up?? (or is it just crap at rendering itself in Chrome?) - to quote it's website: Clever Tenant Referencing "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum at consectetur sem, eget tempus lacus. Curabitur at cursus est. Suspendisse lectus lorem, porttitor sodales porttitor ac, dapibus eu lorem. Nullam in sodales dolor."
We might need to invent new insults for these bootlickers. And that's what they really are: Bootlickers. They're facilitating the worst sort of landlord and employer abuse to grub some money for themselves. "Swine" does not seem a strong enough word.
Who did what now?
If Millenials weren't so damn eager to tell the whole world and his dog about their tedious lives on social media in the first place this company couldn't exist. Reap what you sow kiddies.
Glad I no-longer rent. But my experience with bad landlords left me wondering why there isnt something like this but in favour of tennants who wish to check if their prospective landlord isnt an arse.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I wonder if it's time to look at legislation to prevent discrimination by social media. Housing is too important to be allocated on whether you were a dick on Twatterbook a decade ago. It's not even like you can withdraw.
"No social media presence? Well, I'm sorry sir, but we just don't know who you are..."
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Also, perhaps someone should dig deeper into this "start-up", because this almost smells State-sponsored. Can't think of too many other entities that would be data-mining like this.
Are you kidding? Landlords would chew their arm off to use this service. No sinister state sponsored motive required.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
It's trickier than that in the UK. Demand for housing, even rental housing, currently outstrips supply in much of the country (certainly in the parts with major economic activity where people want to live). Our planning system mostly dates from the late 1960s and was designed to limit urban sprawl. That's getting very painful in light of the population growth we've seen over the last two decades, but the system has a powerful NIMBY lobby that defends it from any attempts at reform.
Alongside this, we've seen a huge rise in the buy-to-let market. The media focus tends to be on Russian/Chinese oligarchs buying up central London housing, but in reality, this impact of this is largely dwarfed by the armies of baby-boomers who, spurred on by various cultural and economic factors, have decided to invest in buying properties to rent out instead of more traditional pensions/savings/investments. There have been some recent efforts by Government to stem this tide, but it's too soon for them to have had any real effect.
The end result of all this is that getting a place to live in a good chunk of the UK is now an undignified scramble. Even grotty rental places often only remain available for a few hours and are the subject of unseemly (and sometimes illegal) bidding wars between potential tenants.
The startup described in TFA sounds, to be blunt, illegal. I cannot possibly see how what they are doing complies with the data protection act and the degree of coverage they're getting makes me suspect that they will be flipped from start-up to close-down quite quickly. That said, somebody will probably tweak the model to comply with the relevant laws and come back with it in a few months time.
My own solution to this kind of thing is fairly simple. I have Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, but there is absolutely nothing on there that does not need to be on there. These exist purely so that I have something that I can put down on forms for job applications etc. They have some professional biographical information, a few links to the profiles of colleagues who have created profiles for the same purposes (and have similarly bland, corporate profiles) and nothing else. I have no "personal" account on these sites as I feel no need to broadcast my life and I would not touch Twitter with a shitty stick.
So yeah... you want access to my Facebook and LinkedIn, go ahead. Trust me, they have an anaesthetic effect.
So you say that breaking at least four contracts (the Terms of Service of Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter forbid exactly what Score Assured demands) is a way to demonstrate "good character"?
The issue here, is one of Fair Housing Laws. Can't speak to .uk. but in the US:
The Federal Fair Housing Acts (42 U.S. Code 3601-3619) prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, familial status (having children), and physical or mental disability (including alcoholism and past drug addiction). In addition, many states and cities also prohibit discrimination based on marital status, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
A landlord may reject you for poor credit history, income that a reasonable businessperson would deem insufficient to pay the rent, negative references from a previous landlord or employer, a criminal conviction, or a prior eviction lawsuit (even one that you won). As long as they don’t discriminate, landlords can basically choose whomever they want. For example, a landlord can refuse to rent to smokers or disallow pets because smokers (and pet owners) as a group are not protected by antidiscrimination laws. If your landlord’s policy is no pets, no smoking, or some other legitimate lease or rental agreement term, you’re out of luck unless you can make some convincing arguments for your case.
All that the (prospective) tenant needs to do is to submit a Subject access request (possibly paying £10) and they have to give all of the information within 40 days. Certainly for people in England (and it is a British company), I don't know what happens if someone from the USA would try it.
Trouble is that many people will just hand over their passwords and forget about it.
IMHO this invades people's privacy and causes self-censorship in the long run. This kind of tool would also open the door for all kinds of discrimination; people who won't rent to homosexuals, people of different ethnic backgrounds, people with differing political views and so forth. All of the aforementioned types of discrimination are a reality already today, but we should by no means make it easier for anyone.
-SR
Use of the website without charge is the consideration.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, it's probably in a museum.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
As a landlord, I'd welcome any service that lets me vet renters before I enter into a contract with them. I've had my share of idiots and deadbeats in my property, and in the Netherlands there's always the danger of a tenant going to the rent control committee and getting their rent lowered to the point where I start losing money (governments expects homeowners and landlords to pay market prices for their properties, yet magically provide low income tenants with apartments at rents well below market or even break-even levels. A "decree economy" at its finest, but of course in practise it doesn't work that way).
With that said, I do not in the slightest expect this service to yield any form of useful info from tenants' social media data. I do things the old fashioned way, by doing an interview and going by gut feeling.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I suppose this is an opportunity for another startup to provide 'clean' social media profiles for a fee. You give them some pictures or yourself and your pets, they fill in some fake vacation photos and some astroturf friends/followers. I'd be surprised if teens these days didn't run parallel accounts: one their parents know about, one they don't.
Washington Post had a better title of "Creepy startup will help landlords, employers and online dates strip-mine intimate data from your Facebook page", but also used strip mine data.
Strip mining is a very intrusive process that removes the easily visible stuff right at the surface and digs deep to get to the valuable material underneath after sorting through it, and ultimately leaves a giant ugly hole. Seems like that fits this company's description as it pertains to data very well.
Also, perhaps someone should dig deeper into this "start-up", because this almost smells State-sponsored. Can't think of too many other entities that would be data-mining like this.
Are you kidding? Landlords would chew their arm off to use this service. No sinister state sponsored motive required.
NO business would "chew their arm off" to use this if the end result was no new customers, AND existing customers leaving, because they would not agree to the new terms.
As I said, people would have to start giving a shit about privacy again for that to happen.
People NEED to start giving a shit about privacy again to avoid this becoming the norm, or even a mandate across all businesses. I fail to see the need for this kind of invasive shit when landlords have plenty of other protections and tools at their disposal. Show me how the results of data mining like this fixes some kind of "growing problem" that landlords are dealing with. I'm willing to bet they can't.
Also, perhaps someone should dig deeper into this "start-up", because this almost smells State-sponsored. Can't think of too many other entities that would be data-mining like this.
Are you kidding? Landlords would chew their arm off to use this service. No sinister state sponsored motive required.
Quite possibly you are right.
On the other hand, a credit check and a simple "must be above this point" criteria works wonders for landlords. (Or so they tell me.) It's simple, will be fair because it's both open and everybody has an equal chance to get approved.
I am not sure most landlords would really care about it as long as the checks clear on time and the place isn't trashed or there are complaints by other tenants.
As a tenant myself, I LIKE the fact that the landlord is weeding out people that can't pay. It's a nicer place to live as a result. Plus it makes me more willing to positively contribute if everybody else is also.
NO business would "chew their arm off" to use this if the end result was no new customers
When your potential customers like to set up meth labs or are just generally scummy assholes that will have no regard for your property or other residents, yeah, they would.
What is worrying me is that I can't immediately see why this would be illegal under current data protection law in England and Wales, because it appears that the prospective tenant is giving their explicit consent to processing the data. Even with sensitive personal data (with the Data Protection Act meaning of the term, i.e., politics, religion and the like) having explicit consent turns off a lot of legal safeguards the subject would otherwise enjoy.
I completely agree with everyone saying this is shady as hell, but since private landlords also have no obligation to offer accommodation to any particular individual, if they all start using this sort of system I don't see that there's much tenants can do about it. They can try to find alternative accommodation that doesn't come with the same intrusion, but that could be difficult in some areas due to the shortage of decent housing, as others have mentioned. They could lobby for better regulation, but historically that has not been very successful in reigning in abusive landlords and the letting agencies they hide behind.
Unless there is a credible case that landlords have made decisions based on personal data that they aren't allowed to consider under anti-discrimination laws or something along those lines, which does seem to make it unwise for this spyware company to pass on that sort of data to landlords in the first place, I'm not sure what there is to actually stop this as the law stands today.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What part of "British Startup" made you think that the USA's constitutional amendments would have any relevance whatsoever?
"Our planning system mostly dates from the late 1960s and was designed to limit urban sprawl. That's getting very painful in light of the population growth we've seen over the last two decades, but the system has a powerful NIMBY lobby that defends it from any attempts at reform."
I don't think that's entirely fair, part the problem is that there are massive amounts of disused brownfield territory, but developers, despite making absolutely massive profits given the money in the housing market currently, have been lobbying to destroy greenfield natural sites to build upon, because it's cheaper for them than knocking down old disused buildings, or ripping up old foundations, pipework etc. from disused ex-industrial sites.
The fact is that there is more than enough disused brownfield land to solve for the UK's housing crisis many times over. People aren't rejecting building on greenfield sites because of NIMBYism, they're rejecting it because it's simply unnecessary and because people would rather see ghastly unused ex-industrial areas turned into shiny new housing developments than they would pristine natural areas turned into shiny new housing developments.
I don't think we should be destroying our argicultural and natural landscapes just because it's cheaper for property developers to build on fresh land than it is to tidy up old industrial areas. If we allow them to do that then we still end up with tatty old industrial areas that look awful, bring down the value of an area, and increase crime as a result whilst destroying nice argicultural or recreational area needlessly.
I think most people would be more than happy with building on these old sites, because it raises the value of an area for people already living around. It's win-win for everyone except property developers who make on slightly less massive profits.
This isn't to say that there aren't legislative changes that can be made to improve the housing situation, there are, an obvious one being that anyone not using land they own that is disused but could be regenerated sould be forced to sell it of or regenerate it themselves rather than sit on it simply in the hope of profiting off the increases in land value at some arbitrary point in the future even though it adds to the artificial land scarcity and brings down the value of an area, but we don't need to make it easier to build on green belt, we already have way more than enough unprotected land to satisfy the country's building needs long into the future. We just need to make sure it's used sensibly.
NO business would "chew their arm off" to use this if the end result was no new customers
When your potential customers like to set up meth labs or are just generally scummy assholes that will have no regard for your property or other residents, yeah, they would.
Sorry, but this is why criminal background checks, credit checks, and deposits exist. I highly doubt social media sleuthing is going to flush out a meth dealer. Regardless, the answer here isn't to treat everyone like a criminal. The answer here is harsher punishments against actual criminals.
"What is worrying me is that I can't immediately see why this would be illegal under current data protection law in England and Wales"
There are two reasons, first, that I have covered elsewhere, is that they're providing a credit score. This is a regulated industry by the FCA, and they're not registered as a financial services company with the FCA for this purpose. Registering imposes certain requirements on them, such as being able to justify how they came to a credit score. If they're using artificial intelligence/statistical techniques as they claim to determine credit score from social media data then it's near impossible to fulfil this obligation because retracing how and why such systems came up with the score they did on an individual basis is damn near impossible, it just doesn't give the auditability required for FCA compliance, and they're not FCA registered anyway.
From a non-financial aspect in terms of the DPA, the DPA states that an organisation cannot capture more data than is necessary for the purposes of their business. Given that their business is effectively evaluating people by capturing social media data, and that some of that data will be inherently irrelevant to determining trust, but that they're relying on statistical algorithms to figure out which data is and isn't valid, as well as including data that they're simply not even legally allowed to use as a determination (gender, sex, sexuality) then it seems pretty clear that they're not in compliance with the DPA. Perhaps most damingly is the fact that upon loading a post onto their own systems, or a picture, they may be capturing data of other people. If a person being evaluated posts "£50k to blow at Joe Bloggs 30th Birthday on Friday!" then they've already taken data illegaly about Joe Bloggs - his name, his birthday, and his age. No individual can ever give permission to a company to harvest another individual's data in this way.
The reason the big boys in this industry haven't done any of this is precisely because it's an unnavigable minefield. When you start introducing non-deterministic algorithms into the fray, with data that can be so arbitrary such as social media posts, there is absolutely no way whatsoever you can guarantee that your system is not going to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, and so on and so forth. It only takes one case where someone suggests that their race, or sex, or sexuality or similar has been taken into account creating bias in the outcome, for that data to be stored on the company's system (which it is, see the example profile) and for the company not to be able to prove otherwise for the whole system to be shut down as non-compliant and for a fine to be issued.
You're right in that there's nothing to stop an organisation harvesting data about an individual that they've been given permission to harvest by that individual, but as soon as you start doing evaluation on that data in a non, or effectively non-deterministic manner, and when that data can include personal information about others then you're going to cross the line.
But again, in this case, they've outright failed on their FCA obligations alone before you even factor that in so regardless this company is not fulfilling their legal obligations.
He said pimps and rappers, that's a sufficient dog whistle for someone like that without the balls to just come out and admit that they are bigots.
What he doesn't realize is that there aren't many people who'd want someone like that as their landlord. People that nasty tend to be horrible in other ways.
The so-called "right to be forgotten" disagrees with you. Once a criminal serves their time in prison, or more likely are simply released with a caution or ASBO, they are Reformed. They will be good for their entire life, so landlords and the like have no right to know whether their would-be tenant blew up his last two apartments and left meth-lab chemicals saturating the walls to neighboring units.
> This needs to be shut down If it's against Facebook's terms of service, couldn't Facebook sue them into oblivion?
You've seen nothing till you see Vancouver BC and Fraser Valley BC area housing bubble. Fucking insane.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Whether SJWs see the irony or not, both groups were/are correct:
Once you step away from liberty, you lose...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"I'd like to think that was the case, and as I read the law it always seemed to be. However, it makes me wonder how social media apps get away with harvesting their users' entire phone/address books"
There isn't really one answer, the answers range from them being covered by data processor sections of the DPA, through to them simply breaking the law but having not been challenged.
I hate using the term Right to be Forgotten, because that's a provision of the updated Data Protection Directive, but if you look at Google's Right to be Forgotten case what that is really when you cut away all the bullshit and propaganda is the fact that Google has simply breached the Data Protection Directive (the Data Protection Act in the UK) - this is effectively exactly what you're talking about, by harvesting personal data Google is in breach of the Data Protection Act, but this is an act that's been around since Google's birth, so why now? Simply because only recently did it ever make it to court. Google has never been DPA compliant on this front, so it's been breaking the law for what, 15 years or so? but nothing happens until a complaint is lodged. Regardless of whether it's good or bad (that's not what I'm trying to debate here regarding the right to be forgotten case as it's incorrectly called) the point was always that Google was harvesting personal data that it simply had no legal defence for collecting. So hopefully that explains simply why the regulators haven't acted against things that seem illegal - they simply just wont until they're forced to by a complaint. This isn't always entirely their fault to be fair, some regulators have it in their mandate that they're only there to be reactive to complaints and not to proactively seek problems, others feel they only have the budget to deal with complaints reactively, and others are just simply incompetent. I don't know which excuse of these the UK's ICO has to be honest.
Aside from outright illegality that simply hasn't been dealt with by regulators, there's the aformentioned data processing laws. In data protection parlance, someone who obtains data originally and owns it is called a data controller (they must of course collect it legally), these data controllers can in strict circumstances pass the data on to 3rd parties without you having any relationship with or giving permission to those third parties for processing purposes. So for example, you may apply for a mortgage, you give the bank your personal details, but say the bank doesn't do the mortgage decision making themselves, say they outsource that, then they may legally be able to pass it to the mortgage decision company for processing without you ever knowing. The restrictions are that the data controller is still legally responsible for the data (i.e. it's security, correctness etc.), the data processor may only use the data for the agreed processing and must delete it when finished, and may not pass it on to anyone else or use it in any other way.
In terms then of how things like automatic phone book uploads work, effectively what's happening here is that your friend gives you their phone number, you are then the data controller, you've been given that data for the purpose of being able to store it and find it when you need to. When you agree to upload it to Google or Facebook's services you're effectively contracting out to them as data processors, such that they're offering to help you store, and help you find this number as and when they need it. That's why this is legal, but here's where social networks could, and probably have (even if not prosecuted) fallen foul of the law - if they start using those phone numbers for any other reason than simply storing them and helping you find them then they're breaking their obligations as a data processor. In theory you could also be held liable because you're the DC but in practice there will be no public interest in punishing you as a private citizen for trusting a large company, but there will be public interest in charging the company.
B
The cost of brown field site development is one issue, but not really the major one. My wife has worked on a number of building refurbishments (they are extremely common in London), and they are not that difficult, expensive, or slow to complete vs new builds. Indeed, the cost of land is so high in London now, that it shouldn't make a difference anyway. Provided the cost of cleaning up the brownfield site is less than the greenfield equivalent value, the development still makes economic sense.
Rather, the main problem is that there is virtually no cost to just sitting on land in the UK. Property rates are incredibly low, and there is no land tax. For many properties now, rent would barely cover depreciation and management fees, so it is simpler to just leave the property empty. Similarly, why go to all the risk of building housing on an empty site when this makes you maybe 1/10 of the money you are making from annual capital gains. Doing actual construction has much more risk than doing nothing, and the returns are unlikely to be worth having to deal with contractors and suppliers.
Just visit the ghost streets of the west end, or Stratford (which 3 years on from the olympics is still releasing housing at a glacial pace) to see how this all works.
The London market is fundamentally being squeezed by land banking. The way to fix it would be with a tax on the unimproved value of land, with the proceeds used to build social housing, but the trouble the govt has now is that enough middle class people are tangled up in potential negative equity situations that they cannot let the bubble collapse.
My pick is a sterling crisis, and the BoE being forced to raise rates to defend the currency. This will wipe out all the middle class hanger-ons, clearing the way for a democratic re-adjustment of the land usage system.
And still flashing 12:00:00.
It's more than just 'giving a shit' though, the market won't protect people at the bottom of the rung because they can't afford to give a shit. Housing is particularly egregious for this because it's not something you get much choice in alot of the time. Britain is in the middle of a housing crisis at the moment and landlords hold all the cards. This isn't "don't buy a bad product that isn't that important", it's "don't have shelter". There isn't enough housing and the poorer get utterly shafted, and stuff like this just makes it even worse.
Legal protections are necessary - that's the entire point of law, to protect those who the system won't.
The problem with bringing up terms like "legally defend" is the fact that it's going to cost someone money to do so. And likely more than they can afford
Since the is the UK, US law clearly ins't applicable; however, in the US using such a service and then denying a tenant a lease would probably open up a landlord to a Fair Housing Act violation. Such lawsuits can be lucrative enough to warrant a contingency fee lawsuit.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Because that's about the intellectual level that most SJW's can understand...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's too bad most don't give a shit about privacy anymore.
Reminds me of the mid 90s and BBSs... you NEVER gave your real name out, or your photo (it would've taken forever anyway)
Then look at how things are today...
I really miss the 90's. I hate having to give my real name, Attila Thehun, to every website where I create an account.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Meanwhile the Silicon Valley people just quietly chuckle over others talking about real estate bubbles...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Once a criminal serves their time in prison, or more likely are simply released with a caution or ASBO, they are Reformed. They will be good for their entire life, so landlords and the like have no right to know whether their would-be tenant blew up his last two apartments and left meth-lab chemicals saturating the walls to neighboring units.
So your preferred alternative is that once released, this person should be marked for life, and no one will ever rent to them again? You enjoy having a large homeless population in your city, do you?
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
Ah, another user snared by /.'s new AppendVaguelyRelatedLinkBot.
/. article.
Because it's included with the summary text, a reader might reasonably believe one of these href dingleberries has something to do with the summary or article. But instead, it's a link to another, semi-random Slashdot article that is only vaguely related to the subject matter. It is most likely a tool to increase internal pageviews, recirculating readers (like greywater going from your shower to your toilet) into barely on-topic posts from the recent past.
You can recognize this phenomenon by these hallmarks:
- The link is always to another
- The dangler always feels awkwardly tacked on, like a person who doesn't understand the topic trying to chime in and sound smart. Or like the textual uncanny valley of a chat bot giving you a close-but-weirdly-off non sequitur.
Nothing posted to
Data controllers don't require registration, anyone who collects personal data automatically becomes a data controller.
"But then there's nothing to say explicitly where that permission does or doesn't end, and that creates huge grey areas in the kind of situation we're talking about."
I see this sort of comment a lot on Slashdot, but I think Slashdot with it's large technical crowd is often guilty of seeing things too logically, and too binary because it's ultimately in our nature with what we do. The reality is quite different, law and law making have many grey areas, and judges and juries do often have to engage in decision making that isn't defined by perfect logical inference. I actually learnt something of this when I was, randomly (don't ask) watching a debate about pesticide laws and the banning of imidacloprid, a form of neonicotinoid. There was an argument that the problem with it is that it was potentially responsible for the decline of bees across Europe, and as such a temporary ban across Europe should be put in place to see if it imporves thing. That was largely agreeable in itself as an interim test, but much of the dispute came from questions about amateur gardens who depend on it for pest control, there aren't really any other equivalently effective systemic inseciticides and that could mean a blight across Europe for amateur gardeners who don't use it in sufficient quantities to cause damage as farmers do, so they decided to try and define exceptions to the ban to allow this use - i.e. it can only be sold in bottles upto 500ml - but what if farmers still just buy bulk lots and use it anyway?, or it can only be used in private gardens - but what if farmers just declare their field their garden?, or it can only be used in non-commercial settings - but what about garden centres trying to keep their stock protected?, or it can only be used in areas smaller than 500m^2 - but what if farmers just claim to sub-divide their fields?... and on, and on, and on. The end result was that exceptions were unworkable, and could always be exploited by farmers trying to flout the ban, and so it was recognised that the only option was to pass the law with no exceptions, but compel national governments to only enforce it when it was in their own judgement being done on a harmful scale. So what's the moral of the story here? the moral is that contrary to my long held belief that the law was a logical, firmly defined thing, that that's simply not the case, the law regularly has to deal with fringe cases, and it always becomes a judgement call at that point. This is why sometimes the law is just outright unfair, but there's no better alternative, because to cover every fringe case you have to write more law, but when you write more law you create more loopholes, and you can just never win - look at tax law, it's often claimed it's too complex, but it's complex to cover fringe cases that companies wanted, but then those fringe cases are poured over to find tax loopholes and it becomes a wholly self-defeating exercise.
So my point here is that I think it's wrong to think that the law ever can or will define everything perfectly such that outcomes can be decided purely on consistent and exact logical reasoning, reality is inevitably going to require judgement calls to be made at some point, mostly I think the UK's judicial system is independent and smart enough to do a good job of this, but sometimes it wont. It's just the unfortunate nature of the beast.
Beyond that though I do agree with everything you say, and whilst I don't think the law can ever be perfect as for above, I do agree that there are ways in which it can be made better. I think it's about precisely targetting law effectively at areas that definietely need clear legislation, whilst getting a fine balance with not leaving the law too wide open to be abused, or to specific to be trivially worked around. Honestly, it's easy to slag politicians off, but watching them in action in actual committee debates where law is actually made (rather th
Yes, that is what "ban the box" is about. Ask these people what policies they push.
Ban-the-box laws typically make it illegal for employers to inquire about an applicant's criminal history before an interview or job offer (the details about which one varies by state; the activist group I linked to above wants to only allow it after a conditional job offer is made). They limit the kind or age of convictions that can be considered, and the categories of employers or where convictions can be considered at all. States like Hawaii (the first state to ban the box for both public and private employers) also prohibit consideration of arrests and other parts of a criminal record beyond convictions.
"Ban the box" absolutely is about putting strict limits on what employers can do with criminal record checks.
I've liked most of my roommates, whatever their ethnicity, but my very worst roommate was a Caucasian rapper. He would freestyle in his room at all hours - it was awful and distracting and embarrassing. I'd have a young lady over, putting my clumsy moves on and he'd be shouting about how disrespectful he was towards women in his fake hood accent. He was painfully privileged, white, suburban. He was a total wannabe thug, posed with guns and stuff like that. He got busted for knocking over a liquor store and when they were hauling him off to his arraignment he broke away from the guards and jumped, handcuffed, to his death in the Santa Barbara courthouse.
I felt pretty guilty about it because I spent so many sleepless nights fervently hoping he would die. I know it wasn't my fault but I still feel guilty about it.
Man, you really need that seminar!