this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
1220 points (99.3% liked)

Greentext

5271 readers
1847 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 96 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Verification is carried out by 3rd party". Totally no potential to misuse of collected data.

[–] Floshie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why no, they specifically mentioned it being highly secure

[–] spicytuna62@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

"Trust us, bro."

[–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago

See the lock icon near the URL? It says you're secure so don't worry bro.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well at least it's not going to the federal government so it should be somewhat safe

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The third party has a very secure agreement to very securely sell data to 572 advertising partners and that is very securely being bought by the FBI.

Not that outlandish, since the FBI and the US police already buys advertising data streams to get access to data they are prohibited to collect directly.

It's so bad there are already middlemen who buy data and compile it into products for law enforcement.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You forgot to mention that of course 253 of the 572 advertising partners consider their use to be a 'legitimate interest' under privacy legislation despite being nothing even close.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago

Isn't 'Legitimate interest' a EU thing?

[–] zerosignal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Privacy legislation? That sounds unconstitutional

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

INB4 SCOTUS rules Canada's existence unconstitutional since it's not mentioned in the original text anywhere

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it was last administration I'd say it's just slightly annoying that our day was going to the federal government. But it's admin....maybe not

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I don't want any administration to be able to. They should absolutely be able to buy it so long as they have a warrant for that instance of that individual or if the individual agrees to cooperate in that instance without coercion.