You didn't give them your name and address, did you?
No, but they have it nonetheless.
The question becomes not "what information does Google have", but "what can google do with that information". I can see laws cracking down on it, the way they do in certain countries, and some very big companies not being quite so big any more. It's happened before.
We keep assuming that it's our data. I'm not so sure it is.
Legal custom would seem to indicate that your medical history is yours, but I get your point.
Every search is transaction with at least two parties.
I guess what it comes down to is what we will allow Google to legally do with our data. As someone else pointed out, it depends on jurisdiction. We will eventually move to similar privacy laws here. There is a chance that we will look back at the past few decades as an anomaly in regard to the public/private properties of being online.
What seems to be missing from most of the analysis here is that you specifically took actions which told them X, Y or Z, so it's a bit much to be complaining later after you've let the horse out that the barn door is open.
You made a logical leap. If I ask google about "treatment for liver cancer", am I "telling" them anything? Or is their algorithm making an assumption about me?
Can you cite the part in the Google user agreement where I waive my right to privacy regarding health issues?
Let's extend the thought experiment: If I google, "how to quit smoking", and then I get a notice that my insurance premiums are going up because I'm a smoker, has my privacy been violated? Did I agree to allow Google to share the assumption that I am a smoker with my insurance company? What if I'm googling that information because I'm trying to convince my neighbor to quit?
We conflate being online with being in public because we've been conditioned to do so by corporate behavior, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. We're already seeing laws being passed in parts of the world that are more protective of people's personal information when online.
When you are online you are generally speaking voluntarily interacting with another party. I'm failing to see how an action you've initiated in private would make any difference.
You're making my point about why online activity is not analogous to meat space.
If I'm in my home, and I google "treatment for liver cancer", am I giving implicit consent to google to share the fact that I might have liver cancer with others? With my insurance company? With my employer? Have I given consent to share that particular information? If I go to a public library...in public...and look up "treatment for liver cancer" in some medical books, should that be the same as announcing that I might have liver cancer to the world? Why is an activity done in public considered private, while another activity, done in private, would be considered public?
If I am in my home, and I search for "treatment for liver cancer" on DuckDuckGo, am I any more or less "in public"? What's the difference other than the intent of the search engine? Why shouldn't HIPAA laws apply?
Like I said, it's complicated, but we better have this conversation.
but if you are in public, you are subject to anyone recording/photographing you and what you are doing, pretty much.
There are exceptions, but you are correct. It becomes confusing when you start to take apart what being "in public" means. When I am on a website, I might be sitting in my home. Am I in public? Not all online behaviors and environments are analogous to meat space.
So I guess the answer is, "it's complicated, but we better have this conversation in a meaningful way and get it sorted."
The "Novitchok" BS is a psyop of the British intelligence services ordered by the same political party that orchestrated the Brexit. "Election meddling" in the US is a Democrat fantasy used as an excuse for an elections they lost against a joke of a candidate. Even if you accept all alleged "Russian hackery" at face value, it has had zero impact on the election. What ruined Shillary was...
Gosh, they're not even trying to make the conspiracy theories sound plausible any more, are they?
That would explain why you incorrectly used the suffix -er to try to indicate that by not entering into a disastrous deal with Amazon will somehow make New York City "more poor", when you know very well that Amazon NOT opening a facility in New York City does not change the financial circumstances of the city in any way.
It appears that your grasp of logic and causation are as sloppy as your English. But I will let that pass, since if you are indeed in Finland, you're probably drunk.
This one was written that they didn't get tax incentives until those jobs were filled. So it looked like it would have been hard for Amazon to screw NYC on this deal.
The unemployment rate in New York City is about 4% right now. A 5.5% unemployment rate is considered full employment. Giving away the store to Amazon in tax subsidies and abatement to bring in some jobs that might go away in a year or two is bad policy. Amazon will still be using all the services, require all the infrastructure, and somebody else will get stuck with the bill. There is no case to be made for why one company should get a better deal from local government than another.
Plus, the Amazon facility will cause housing prices to go up even higher than they already are, which will hurt people who live in NYC.
I can understand subsidizing some new technology or business sector so they can get off the ground, but Amazon doesn't need the help.
This outright lie invalidated any point you were trying to make. All you proved is you don't understand taxes at all. Income withholding taxes are pass-through taxes, and if the employer knowingly keeps them from the government they are supposed to deposit them towards, people go to jail and companies go under.
No, my friend. If you look elsewhere in this thread, I have supplied citations and publications that show that indeed, many companies that get state and local tax subsidies which are structured so taxes are withheld from worker's paychecks and then kept by the companies. If you can't find my post with the citations, let me know and I'll post them again just for you.
But just like New York, it's going to have to adapt to being significantly poorer.
Let's talk about "significantly poorer". The population of Finland is what, about 5.5 million people? The GDP of Finland is about $251 billion (USD). The population of New York City is about 8 million people, and the GDP of New York City is over $1.5 TRILLION (with a "T").
The city of New York has a GDP that's about the same as the entire country of South Korea, that has over 51 million people.
You might want to reflect on the magnitude of those numbers before worrying about whether New York City is going to be "poorer" because they didn't let Amazon come in and run all the housing prices up and provide a bunch of shitty jobs while costing the city billions in the required new infrastructure and services to deal with an Amazon facility.
In the United States, state and local corporate subsidies do not work.
What are you talking about? That's not at all how this works. cite your sources.
Yeah, it's how it works.
Here is the story:
By David Cay Johnston
April 12 (Reuters) - Across the United States more than 2,700 companies are collecting state income taxes from hundreds of thousands of workers - and are keeping the money with the states’ approval, says an eye-opening report published on Thursday.
The report from Good Jobs First, a nonprofit taxpayer watchdog organization funded by Ford, Surdna and other major foundations, identifies 16 states that let companies divert some or all of the state income taxes deducted from workers’ paychecks. None of the states requires notifying the workers, whose withholdings are treated as taxes they paid.
General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and AMC Theatres enjoy deals to keep state taxes deducted from their workers’ paychecks, the report shows. Foreign companies also enjoy such arrangements, including Electrolux, Nissan, Toyota and a host of Canadian, Japanese and European banks, Good Jobs First says.
Why do state governments do this? Public records show that large companies often pay little or no state income tax in states where they have large operations, as this column has documented. Some companies get discounts on property, sales and other taxes. So how to provide even more subsidies without writing a check? Simple. Let corporations keep the state income taxes deducted from their workers’ paychecks for up to 25 years.
It was not always this way. Letting companies keep their workers’ state taxes apparently began in Kentucky two decades ago as a way to retain jobs.
Last July when I wrote about six big companies that pocket Illinois state taxes () I knew there was more to this. But I had no idea how pervasive these diversions were until I read an advance copy of the 39-page report by Good Jobs First.
And here's where you can find the report itself and updates and a handy subsidy tracker where you can look up the type and amount of subsidies states and municipalities are handing out to corporations.
pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.
Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.
Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.
The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.
And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.
Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?
You had me until you mentioned a fictitious TV character Saul Goodman. Nice try with the bullshit'n.
The number of meth labs shut down and coal jobs are both publicly available. I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.
How many jobs does crystal meth provide for Americans?
Well, let's see: In one year alone (2012), the DEA raided and closed 11,210 meth labs in the US. Now, let's assume that the DEA shuts down maybe one in four meth labs (I would bet that it's much less than that). So, we can say that there are probably about 50,000 meth labs operating at any given time in the US. Let's also assume that not all of those meth labs are one-man operations, so we have at least 50,000 jobs for Americans.
Let's further assume that the guys running the labs are not the same as the guys dealing the meth on the street. Even if we assume that for every meth lab, there is one person who actually deals the drugs, we're up to over 100,000 jobs.
That 100,000 jobs. Not counting the thousands of law enforcement jobs for people to try to stop the meth labs. The lawyers like Saul Goodman who represent the meth chemists, and on and on.
In 2013, there were 80,209 coal jobs in the US. So we can easily say that more people are working in the crystal meth industry than in the coal industry.
What in your opinion should be the limits of the right to live, other than the biological / physical ones?
I never said "should", but there are limits on the right to live whether we like them or not. People are killed in self-defense, and there does exist capital punishment.
Gab has proven not to censor things so far and taken a lot of heat for it.
Gab has its own speech rules, and they have banned users over certain speech. For example, no doxxing, child porn, revenge porn, credible threats, spam, or selling drugs or weapons.
So see, there are always limits. There is no freedom that exists without limits and/or consequences. We can discuss where to draw the line, but there is always a line. If someone tells you that there is such a thing as an "absolute freedom", they're full of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but they have it nonetheless.
The question becomes not "what information does Google have", but "what can google do with that information". I can see laws cracking down on it, the way they do in certain countries, and some very big companies not being quite so big any more. It's happened before.
Legal custom would seem to indicate that your medical history is yours, but I get your point.
I guess what it comes down to is what we will allow Google to legally do with our data. As someone else pointed out, it depends on jurisdiction. We will eventually move to similar privacy laws here. There is a chance that we will look back at the past few decades as an anomaly in regard to the public/private properties of being online.
You made a logical leap. If I ask google about "treatment for liver cancer", am I "telling" them anything? Or is their algorithm making an assumption about me?
Can you cite the part in the Google user agreement where I waive my right to privacy regarding health issues?
Let's extend the thought experiment: If I google, "how to quit smoking", and then I get a notice that my insurance premiums are going up because I'm a smoker, has my privacy been violated? Did I agree to allow Google to share the assumption that I am a smoker with my insurance company? What if I'm googling that information because I'm trying to convince my neighbor to quit?
We conflate being online with being in public because we've been conditioned to do so by corporate behavior, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. We're already seeing laws being passed in parts of the world that are more protective of people's personal information when online.
You're making my point about why online activity is not analogous to meat space.
If I'm in my home, and I google "treatment for liver cancer", am I giving implicit consent to google to share the fact that I might have liver cancer with others? With my insurance company? With my employer? Have I given consent to share that particular information? If I go to a public library...in public...and look up "treatment for liver cancer" in some medical books, should that be the same as announcing that I might have liver cancer to the world? Why is an activity done in public considered private, while another activity, done in private, would be considered public?
If I am in my home, and I search for "treatment for liver cancer" on DuckDuckGo, am I any more or less "in public"? What's the difference other than the intent of the search engine? Why shouldn't HIPAA laws apply?
Like I said, it's complicated, but we better have this conversation.
There are exceptions, but you are correct. It becomes confusing when you start to take apart what being "in public" means. When I am on a website, I might be sitting in my home. Am I in public? Not all online behaviors and environments are analogous to meat space.
So I guess the answer is, "it's complicated, but we better have this conversation in a meaningful way and get it sorted."
Gosh, they're not even trying to make the conspiracy theories sound plausible any more, are they?
That would explain why you incorrectly used the suffix -er to try to indicate that by not entering into a disastrous deal with Amazon will somehow make New York City "more poor", when you know very well that Amazon NOT opening a facility in New York City does not change the financial circumstances of the city in any way.
It appears that your grasp of logic and causation are as sloppy as your English. But I will let that pass, since if you are indeed in Finland, you're probably drunk.
The unemployment rate in New York City is about 4% right now. A 5.5% unemployment rate is considered full employment. Giving away the store to Amazon in tax subsidies and abatement to bring in some jobs that might go away in a year or two is bad policy. Amazon will still be using all the services, require all the infrastructure, and somebody else will get stuck with the bill. There is no case to be made for why one company should get a better deal from local government than another.
Plus, the Amazon facility will cause housing prices to go up even higher than they already are, which will hurt people who live in NYC.
I can understand subsidizing some new technology or business sector so they can get off the ground, but Amazon doesn't need the help.
No, my friend. If you look elsewhere in this thread, I have supplied citations and publications that show that indeed, many companies that get state and local tax subsidies which are structured so taxes are withheld from worker's paychecks and then kept by the companies. If you can't find my post with the citations, let me know and I'll post them again just for you.
Let's talk about "significantly poorer". The population of Finland is what, about 5.5 million people? The GDP of Finland is about $251 billion (USD). The population of New York City is about 8 million people, and the GDP of New York City is over $1.5 TRILLION (with a "T").
The city of New York has a GDP that's about the same as the entire country of South Korea, that has over 51 million people.
You might want to reflect on the magnitude of those numbers before worrying about whether New York City is going to be "poorer" because they didn't let Amazon come in and run all the housing prices up and provide a bunch of shitty jobs while costing the city billions in the required new infrastructure and services to deal with an Amazon facility.
In the United States, state and local corporate subsidies do not work.
You think New York is poor?
Yeah, it's how it works.
Here is the story:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
And here's where you can find the report itself and updates and a handy subsidy tracker where you can look up the type and amount of subsidies states and municipalities are handing out to corporations.
https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/...
Oh boy.
Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.
Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.
The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.
And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.
Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?
And it is probably one of the industries most resistant to automation. Not that it couldn't be automated, but it will most likely be one of the last.
Most of the states with the most meth labs are Republican, and the state with the most meth labs is Vice-President Pence's very own Indiana.
https://www.realclearpolitics....
The number of meth labs shut down and coal jobs are both publicly available. I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.
No. Spam is not illegal. Doxxing is not illegal. Gab chose to add those limits themselves.
I'll bet you have.
Well, let's see: In one year alone (2012), the DEA raided and closed 11,210 meth labs in the US. Now, let's assume that the DEA shuts down maybe one in four meth labs (I would bet that it's much less than that). So, we can say that there are probably about 50,000 meth labs operating at any given time in the US. Let's also assume that not all of those meth labs are one-man operations, so we have at least 50,000 jobs for Americans.
Let's further assume that the guys running the labs are not the same as the guys dealing the meth on the street. Even if we assume that for every meth lab, there is one person who actually deals the drugs, we're up to over 100,000 jobs.
That 100,000 jobs. Not counting the thousands of law enforcement jobs for people to try to stop the meth labs. The lawyers like Saul Goodman who represent the meth chemists, and on and on.
In 2013, there were 80,209 coal jobs in the US. So we can easily say that more people are working in the crystal meth industry than in the coal industry.
You could make the same argument for crystal meth.
They're already there. Gab is mainly a honeypot for law enforcement.
I never said "should", but there are limits on the right to live whether we like them or not. People are killed in self-defense, and there does exist capital punishment.
Gab has its own speech rules, and they have banned users over certain speech. For example, no doxxing, child porn, revenge porn, credible threats, spam, or selling drugs or weapons.
So see, there are always limits. There is no freedom that exists without limits and/or consequences. We can discuss where to draw the line, but there is always a line. If someone tells you that there is such a thing as an "absolute freedom", they're full of shit.
Gab is representative of the nation as a hole.
No, I am saying I cannot imagine a world where that would be the case.
I don't get why so many of you ACs are confused.