Yet another Josh :donor:<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://social.cologne/@ClipHead" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>ClipHead</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>pluralistic</span></a></span> </p><p>Its not just that, though.</p><p>Say a company DOES do right, even through hardship. Like.... <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/RadioShack" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>RadioShack</span></a> .</p><p>They collected untold amount of <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PII" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PII</span></a> from people with "name address phone#" even for simple battery purchases. Did they do anything with it? Only internally.</p><p>Well, that is until <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/bankruptcy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>bankruptcy</span></a> court. Radio Shack defended keeping the PII private because thats how it was given to them, in trust.</p><p>The bankruptcy court INSTEAD said that PII was worth X million, and was to be sold. End of discussion.</p><p>If a court refuses to acknowledge privacy rights, and informed consent, and instead goes "well fuck that its works loads of money", well, yeahh. The whole enchilada is untrustworthy.</p>