Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (3980.21)
    But my guess here is that the Privacy Policy put in place by MS is merely what the DPA attempts to force companies to do anyway.

    Hrm, this happened in Canada, so would probably be subject to Canadian privacy and data protection law if they exist. So, I'm not entirely sure what the stance is there.

    I am not in any way a lawyer or the recipient of legal training, and I'm just looking at the text of the act (which doesn't necessarily translate to the actual application of the act itself). From what I can tell, this wouldn't be illegal as such because it is not a "person" disclosing personal data to a third party without the consent of the Data Controller. (Section 55 (1) (a) & (b))

    But then, in other cases (such as Facebook and it's use of data), the act requires that Data Controllers have "adequate" measures in place to safeguard personal data. Then again, I am wondering if that covers things like home address (and IP address).

    ...God, reading this again makes my brain ache. I wondered why the Act had a reputation for being a bit complex... now I actually get it.
  2.  (3980.22)
    @Cyman:
    Some might call it compassion?


    No, not at all.

    If someone hurts one of my loved ones of course I want to hurt them, that's human, that's primal. But I'm glad there is a system there to keep it from just being me and a crowbar out for justice. Because if the cops get the wrong person, they can let him go. Putting people in the position of "what about your kids?!?" is asking them to look past the trade-off, look past logic and simply go on fear and panic. Appealing to people's baser instincts in a moment of crisis doesn't help that kid one iota and clouds the issue.

    All that said, if you hand over your information to a corporation you're taking the risk that they can use the information, properly or otherwise.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2008
     (3980.23)
    Word. I certainly do hate the emotional arguments that discard logic, but I would argue that just on an existential level, when I'm considering what should be done to rectify a problem I'm not necessarily involved in, I find it helps to think something along the lines of "well, who is actually suffering here and needing help? Parents missing a kid? I think if my kid were missing, I'd appreciate people surrendering their XBOX data (well, having it taken without consultation in this case) on the off chance I might be able to figure out where my kid went; logically I could extend the same courtesy."

    I don't mean to look at it as a crisis situation and draw on pathos; I just mean in my ideal world, people surrender their XBOX data so I can find my lost child (who somehow got lost in a perfect world, lucky little shit!), so not opposing that type of action in this world would promote general good will toward other people.
    • CommentAuthorWakefield
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2008
     (3980.24)
    Sure, but small as they are, these aren't tradeoffs people should be forced in to, let a lone have Microsoft decide it is a tradeoff they are having forced on them. Still the question remains - was it necessary?


    These tradeoffs are necessary. When a kid is missing, you need to mobilize quickly and, as they say, "leave no stone unturned." The police don't have the luxury of debating rights-to-privacy issues on a message board.