User Controls
Is this website GDPR compliant?
-
2018-07-06 at 10:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by S6x Trademarks is the emblem to be registered. You can't copyright a word. but you can trademark an image with that word on it. usually a brand name. the corporate logo or emblem is trademark.
copyright is more of a research department before they officially copyright your written or musical works. they make sure that several paragraphs don't match. it's like 7 words in a row or 10 words in a row before they write you back to let you know there could be conflict.
you can request them to copyright and you get a certification. but you can still be sued if a quote by a published person shows up that matches yours word for word, and you didn't give them credit in your writing for being the first to express this.
Also, it used to be 7 years.. the Disney Law changed it to some weird amount of years. Like 88 years or some shit. look it up.
I think you may want to do a little more reading on how copyright law works, but regardless, how does this apply the post you quoted? The point I was making is that you don't have to trademark anything if you don't want to, and you elect to never claim your copyright and thereby never disclose authorship/ownership of a work. The same can not be said of mandatory WHOIS info requirements as you can not provide a service on a domain without publicly disclosing ownership. -
2018-07-06 at 10:31 PM UTCliterary is visual and not by touch. is this why you quoted "set in a tangible medium"
-
2018-07-06 at 10:37 PM UTC
-
2018-07-06 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think you may want to do a little more reading on how copyright law works, but regardless, how does this apply the post you quoted? The point I was making is that you don't have to trademark anything if you don't want to, and you elect to never claim your copyright and thereby never disclose authorship/ownership of a work. The same can not be said of mandatory WHOIS info requirements as you can not provide a service on a domain without publicly disclosing ownership.
Trademark is very important if you have cartoon caracters or art work (photos, etc) with written work (which becomes corporate image) and names to go with it. Such as Charlie Brown.
as for the Whois.. do you remember Madonna suing a guy who owned Madonna.com
he had it for his own business. but because she trademarked her name she got the court to force this domain from this guy. claiming he domain squated on it. So as a standard of practice (which is why "system rules for legal rights becomes manditory" this is why you should be registering your domain not to a name registry but on the ICANN (or whatever department has become official)
I mean that's what I was understanding out of your conversation. you tend to take a complicated rout of explaining things I noticed. -
2018-07-06 at 11:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill I NEVER SAID IT DID!
Right, what you said was that copyright incentivizes productive endeavors and also this:Originally posted by Lanny lol, and what good was whois info doing the public previously?
The exact same good that trademark and copyright info was doing the public.
so maybe you see how this looks like backpedaling. If you don't think the merit of mandatory public WHOIS information is the same as that of copyright, then maybe you'd like to tell us what exactly it is that justifies it. -
2018-07-07 at 1:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
Oversight of society needs to be done by competent regulators with pro-social interests rather than nebulous, antisocial, practically unaccountable, profit-motivated, multinational internet companies
No such thing…again you are pretty naive if you think any authority is free of corruption. Ever read animal farm?
Can't believe I have to spell this out but you are a Trump supporter so probably not too well endowed in the IQ department
More naive thinking…surveillance has been around a lot longer than Trump, the internet, me and you…and will continue on until the last 2 human's die.
loll. cant even use the quote function properly.
low IQ proved. -
2018-07-07 at 11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Right, what you said was that copyright incentivizes productive endeavors and also this:
so maybe you see how this looks like backpedaling. If you don't think the merit of mandatory public WHOIS information is the same as that of copyright, then maybe you'd like to tell us what exactly it is that justifies it.
Providing information on who owns what so accountability can be enforced.
The same thing all sorts of things, like company registrations, vehicle registrations, radio licences, etc. are supposed to do.
You are being trying to use clever sophistry and Jesuitical logic in place of an actual argument, and it's sad. -
2018-07-07 at 2:16 PM UTC
-
2018-07-07 at 4:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Helladamnleet There's literally a thread about how there's logs of IPs…..
the client and server knowing each other's IP is required for a connection to take place and I believe service providers are legally obligated to log them in both the US and EU - it doesn't count in this context -
2018-07-07 at 5:07 PM UTC
-
2018-07-07 at 5:14 PM UTC*in the context of the GDPR
-
2018-07-07 at 6:11 PM UTC
-
2018-07-07 at 6:40 PM UTC
-
2018-07-07 at 6:54 PM UTCYour e-mail address is requested upon registration to most websites.
Personal Identifiable Information (PII) is defined as:
Any representation of information that permits the identity of an individual to whom the information applies to be reasonably inferred by either direct or indirect means. Further, PII is defined as information: (i) that directly identifies an individual (e.g., name, address, social security number or other identifying number or code, telephone number, email address, etc.) or (ii) by which an agency intends to identify specific individuals in conjunction with other data elements, i.e., indirect identification. (These data elements may include a combination of gender, race, birth date, geographic indicator, and other descriptors). Additionally, information permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual is the same as personally identifiable information. This information can be maintained in either paper, electronic or other media.
source: https://www.dol.gov/general/ppii -
2018-07-07 at 6:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Yeah, honestly mandatory public and correct whois info is/was a system that didn't pose any problem for large organizations but hurt small service providers, especially those in controversial areas. When I registered NiS I had to choose between risking domain seizure or having my legal name, email, and home address on the record as associated with the site. But this isn't an issue for corporate "persons".
can't you pay like $50 to have not be public? -
2018-07-07 at 8:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by J. R. Providing information on who owns what so accountability can be enforced.
The same thing all sorts of things, like company registrations, vehicle registrations, radio licences, etc. are supposed to do.
There's two points here. The first is that unlike those things, stuff like works of literature, art, personal possessions, and public notices do not require information of authorship to be on public record. In fact you're posting on this site right now without your identity being made public. Why are you entitled to post on this site without being identified but I'm not allowed to host it in the same way? If the concern is legal, I have no problem providing information to a registrar which can be supplied to law enforcement when a warrant is secured. The issue is with it being published to the public without cause. The only accountability you get from that is accountability to mob opinion if you do something unpopular.
The other point is the requirement never actually even achieved the basic goal of informing users about website authorship reliably as you can register a domain to a corporate person or through an anonymization service. It just means that if you have to pay to keep your information from being publicly disclosed, which is hilarious since this conversation started when cootehill said that the effective elimination of the whois was somehow unfairly advantageous to the wealthy.You are being trying to use clever sophistry and Jesuitical logic in place of an actual argument, and it's sad.
Lol, you're the one who's stooped to name calling in the very first post you're directing at me. Your "argument" is shouting accountability loudly and that's about it.
Originally posted by xy0 DDG is perfect. I'm a web developer and I use it all day every day.
jedigle WILL fail, it's only a matter of time.
I use DDG a lot but I have to be honest, the results aren't as good as Google's. Not sure if it's the lack of "personalization" or just that the relative size and resources of the organizations are different by many orders of magnitude. DDG does pretty good, it's definitely usable, it's just not quite at the google level.
Originally posted by Item 9 can't you pay like $50 to have not be public?
You can. There have historically been some issue with the "masking" services or whatever you call them. As I recall some (all?) of them operated by registering the domain themselves so you were no longer the actual owner but they'd let you control it, which isn't exactly ideal. -
2018-07-08 at 10:20 PM UTCLanny, I'm a fascist. I believe in a strong state, a patriarchy, and a dictatorship.
Your political views are best described as heedless fluffy bunny exploitation of workers and of natural resources.
One thing everyone, even antifa commies, agree on is that fascist states work great, and help improve countries and the lives of the people therein. The examples are numerous, especially in places like Latin America.
Anything that a government has done due to restricting privacy is a drop in a bucket compared to the chaos that results from not allowing police the power to do what needs to be done due to "privacy", "due procedure", "human rights" and other faggoty made up concepts. -
2018-07-08 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Lanny, I'm a fascist. I believe in a strong state, a patriarchy, and a dictatorship.
Your political views are best described as heedless fluffy bunny exploitation of workers and of natural resources.
One thing everyone, even antifa commies, agree on is that fascist states work great, and help improve countries and the lives of the people therein. The examples are numerous, especially in places like Latin America.
Anything that a government has done due to restricting privacy is a drop in a bucket compared to the chaos that results from not allowing police the power to do what needs to be done due to "privacy", "due procedure", "human rights" and other faggoty made up concepts.
So basically you hold to an almost definitionally oppressive doctrine and because of this political dogma you refuse to mount an actual argument for you position because "ima a fascist lol, so that means privacy doesn't matter!"
This is especially comic in light of your insistence on the importance of "accountability" in the other thread seeing as you label yourself as a supporter of the state with zero accountability. -
2018-07-08 at 10:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So basically you hold to an almost definitionally oppressive doctrine and because of this political dogma you refuse to mount an actual argument for you position because "ima a fascist lol, so that means privacy doesn't matter!"
This is especially comic in light of your insistence on the importance of "accountability" in the other thread seeing as you label yourself as a supporter of the state with zero accountability.
You haven't articulated an argument either, you've just been like "hurr durr, caught you backtracking". As a debate tactic that's one step up from pointing out spelling errors.
A state is a collection of individuals. In a fascist state accountability of individuals is key. The state is only a concept - a body corporate, and not a person. All individuals need to be accountable, and the measure of their value is the extent to which they aid and bring renown to the state. -
2018-07-08 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill You haven't articulated an argument either, you've just been like "hurr durr, caught you backtracking". As a debate tactic that's one step up from pointing out spelling errors.
No, I repeatedly asked you to make clarify your post but you seem to have refused to. If you want to take back what you said about the similarity to copyright law you can and we'll move on, but at present you seem to be avoiding addressing the point.
And I have presented an argument. A few actually. Here's a recap of a few: there is no precedent for public disclosure of ownership of a site. The whois requirement never really worked at establishing ownership in the first place. Inability to publish pseudonymously restricts freedom of speech.
