A trade group for the adult entertainment industry will appear at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in its challenge to a Texas law that requires pornography sites to verify the age of their users before providing access – for example, by requiring a government-issued identification. The law applies to any website whose content is one-third or more “harmful to minors” – a definition that the challengers say would include most sexually suggestive content, from nude modeling to romance novels and R-rated movies.
Is not strange at all you’re adding me to prove a negative that can’t be proven.
We just went over that again for the third time no you can’t. Your name and membership is not pii.
Awesome point to one that allow l makes it unlawful federally.
Ed: you’ll notice I didn’t say they would, nor that they could just that it isn’t federally illegal to do.
Of course it can be proven. You said it’s explicitly exempted. So prove it. You can’t.
Companies cannot publish personally-identifiable information about their customers without consent.
Unless it’s explicitly exempted in policy, companies are held to their own privacy policy federally. You should actually read what I write rom.
We know they can be released because of the unamerican acts commission specifically requesting membership rolls and the subsequent supreme court case saying they can be disclosed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/disclosure-of-membership-lists
There are federal rules of disclosure as to 501c3 and charitable organizations but pornhub and in fact most businesses are not 501c3 nor charitable.
Hahaha there’s a big difference between a court ruling that you have to provide member lists to the courts if they request it, and “companies are allowed to freely publish personally-identifiable information about their users”
Jesus. That’s the best you can do?
There’s not it establishes they are not protected and are in fact releasable.
Laws don’t tell you what you can do they tell you what you can’t do. Point to a law that says you cannot release membership rolls, you won’t find one and the fact you still haven’t says oh so much.
Citing a source? No, that’s one more step then you’ve done huh? Let’s see your citation perry Mason.
No it doesn’t. It states they have to give it to the courts.
Courts wanting access to information to do their job != “Sure, go and publish personally-identifiable information about your customers”
You’ve still been unable to show that companies can go around publishing information about specific users without their consent.
It started they aren’t private.
It’s not illegal guy.
I have. You want me to have you a law that tells you what you can do, those don’t exist at all. No law says what you can do. The fact you can’t find a single law that states it is illegal is the best evidence that it is not in fact illegal. Surely if it’s so correct you are beyond reproach that we must simply take it on your word you could easily provide evidence to back your position… You haven’t because you can’t.
Grow up.
No it didn’t. It stated they had to give them to the court.
No, I’m asking you to show me where it says personally-identifiable information, such as names, are fine for companies to broadcast publicly.
Why can’t you provide this proof?
Grow up. Data protection laws exist. Companies can’t go round posting information about specific users, no matter how much you and your school friends think it would be a funny way to, like, totally own those politicians brooo.
Because they aren’t private.
Name alone is not in itself pii but membership specifically is not private unless it’s in their privacy policy.
Because that’s not how the law works bud.
Awesome, point to one that says membership rolls are protected. You can’t find a law and you can’t be original, why am I not surprised.