How the fuck is that even remotely legal? ... "deidentified" my ass.

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ah, but Google promised to remove PII they found in this deidentified dataset, so worry not.

> If you’ve flown Spirit and worry that Google will soon know about a testy conversation you had with the airline’s call center, you’re being told not to worry. The court filing says the data was deidentified before being put on sale and Google has promised to scrub any PII it finds in the trove.

▲

gspr 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Ah, but Google promised to remove PII they found in this deidentified dataset, so worry not.

… and even if someone can prove that they didn't, the only consequences will be a teeny-tiny slap on the wrists.

This kind of stuff needs to come with promises to pay the P in the PII big bucks if the I is indeed I.

▲

akoboldfrying 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I basically agree, but I'd also say: Every Gmail user has already accepted such a promise as sufficient.

	▲	phatfish an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn't be surprised if Gmail data has far more access restrictions internally at Google than this auction bought dump.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

sscaryterry 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah, trust me bro :)

▲

noir_lord 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You know when we (they) tell you not to do any personal computing on work devices/systems and to keep your devices completely separate from work ones.

Yeah this (and lawsuits/investigations) are why, the employer owns the data, in some contexts (like this one) it can become an asset (or a liability) but in either case it's not yours.

Of course that only gets you part of the way there anyway see Twitch recently opting in all users by default to mined for AI and only adding an opt out after backlash with a quote that was so on the nose it made me stop "If we'd have asked them to opt in, they wouldn't have opted in" (paraphrasing but it was that blunt).