Do u think where is more secure?

[Reset0609]

@dngray

I very much doubt there is a law in Portugal that states a company must do business with you no matter what.

One wonders when youll stop making assumptions abouy Portuguese customs or law that turn out to be flat out wrong . There are indeed such laws for some sectors and/or circumstances. Restaurants cannot refuse you service, neither can telecoms. Insurance companies must accept you as a costumer after three other companies have refused to do so. And I could go on…

@dngray

The matter you referenced was about recording people’s faces, number plates in a public places/roads and retention of that data, that doesn’t sound very similar to me.

The portion of the article you cite is CNPD suggesting there would be no legitimate reason even if they covered the faces and so on…

@dngray

You’re giving them particular data to safe keep and they want to check that they are even allowed to be in possession of that data.

They cannot “just check” by default, its really a simple concept and a very direct application of article 26 of the constitution. It was devised in response to the police “just checking” people’s homes for prohibited material and corporations practising similar privacy invasions on their workers under the excuse that they lived in company housing.

If anything whats farfetched is its application in the Tesla situation, you yourself claiming not to see a connection between the two! If it applies there, one should have no problem justifying it here.

@dngray

Checking images against known fingerprints of CSAM is likely to be considered “legitimate” because Google state they don’t want to be holding that kind of content.

Google has no constitutional rights, people do… You dont seem to be understanding that. Reading the preamble of the constituion should be enlightening as to its socialist character.

@dngray

I also seriously doubt you’d find a judge that would argue otherwise.

After a flurry of flat out wrong assumptions about Portuguese laws and customs, all of them confidently presented, is anyone supposed to believe you know how a Portuguese court would act in any given situation?

[dngray (Daniel Gray)]

@Reset0609

One wonders when youll stop making assumptions abouy Portuguese customs or law that turn out to be flat out wrong . There are indeed such laws for some sectors and/or circumstances. Restaurants cannot refuse you service, neither can telecoms. Insurance companies must accept you as a costumer after three other companies have refused to do so. And I could go on…

These relate to discrimination which a lot of countries have and they tend to be based on specific things about a person. A term which everyone who uses the service has to abide by you’ll find is not one of those things.

I also bet there’s terms and conditions on the insurance thing. If you’re uninsurable because extremely high risk, I doubt there is nothing that makes a firm be forced to insure you, and if there is I would bet your rates for that insurance would not be equal to someone else without that risk attached.

I think you’re oversimplifying things to fit your narrative tbh.

@Reset0609

They cannot “just check” by default, its really a simple concept and a very direct application of article 26 of the constitution. It was devised in response to the police “just checking” people’s homes for prohibited material and corporations practising similar privacy invasions on their workers under the excuse that they lived in company housing.

This isn’t police, and you’ll find warrant law is different again.

@Reset0609

Google has no constitutional rights, people do… You dont seem to be understanding that. Reading the preamble of the constituion should be enlightening as to its socialist character.

They don’t need to have “constitutional rights” they can simply have terms of service like any other provider. I’m sure there are expensive restaurants in Portugal that have “dress code” that is required for entry, that is a more fair example.

Anyway I think we’re going round and round in circles. The fact these products are offered to Portuguese users without issue so far, should be indication on it’s own that it’s legal. It’s not like these big tech companies don’t have legal teams to determine compliance of local law or anything.

[Reset0609]

@dngray

These relate to discrimination which a lot of countries have and they tend to be based on specific things about a person. A term which everyone who uses the service has to abide by you’ll find is not one of those things.

Youre on a tangent there. Ive already explained why such terms are not legally valid:

@Reset0609

EULAs, terms, whatever you want to call them generally have no legal validity here in Portugal, not even due to anything in them but due to the fact that only a proper ID process would make them valid. When you click an “I agree” button, or sometimes not even that, theres no record to conclusively prove who accepted the terms and in what date. Thats required and its why for anything more serious one is forced through a cumbersome process of sending out ID copies, as well as to sign by hand every page of the terms being agreed to. Thankfully the id.gov.pt system is simplifying that process

Even if ID check was properly done and everything was on the up and up, constitutional right cannot be waived by private contract.

@dngray

This isn’t police

That just makes it a worse violation . The state can sometimes impinge on individual rights to safeguard the community, corporations have no such prerogative. Not sure where youre from, but overall you just seem to be taking for granted the way things work in North America. Case in point:

@dngray

I also bet there’s terms and conditions on the insurance thing. If you’re uninsurable because extremely high risk, I doubt there is nothing that makes a firm be forced to insure you, and if there is I would bet your rates for that insurance would not be equal to someone else without that risk attached.

The whole point of such law is to ensure those uninsurable people can get insurance! It also safeguards that the rates cannoy be higher than a certain percentage of the person’s income.

@dngray

I think you’re oversimplifying things to fit your narrative tbh.

My narrative? Lets see…

@dngray

They’re a US company so they have to abide by US law. If it was illegal according to Portuguese law then it would likely mean that product would not be available to Portugal, (and users with a Portugese IP address), but seeing as it is I doubt this is the case.

As we’ve already ascertained, Google operates under an Irish subsidiary and companies regularly run afoul of the law with some of the servives and products they provide. You went from not knowing ny of that to a Portuguese law scholar . And Im the one with a “narrative”

@dngray

you’ll find warrant law is different again

Explain? (Sources?)

@dngray

They don’t need to have “constitutional rights” they can simply have terms of service like any other provider.

Responded to above

@dngray

I’m sure there are expensive restaurants in Portugal that have “dress code” that is required for entry, that is a more fair example.

There arent… One would think youd by now refrain from making any guesses?

@dngray

The fact these products are offered to Portuguese users without issue so far, should be indication on it’s own that it’s legal

It should?? And they are offered withou any issues so far??? How do you know? Ive already provided you the Tesla situation thats been going on for years, but maybe we can talk about the Cloudflare one? Talk about building a narrative and simply ignoring all evidence otherwise

[dngray (Daniel Gray)]

@Reset0609

It should?? And they are offered withou any issues so far??? How do you know? Ive already provided you the Tesla situation thats been going on for years, but maybe we can talk about the Cloudflare one? Talk about building a narrative and simply ignoring all evidence otherwise

Anyway you’ve successfully derailed the thread, so we’re going to have to employ some moderation here.

I very much doubt scanning serverside for CSAM is illegal in Portugal despite the other irrelevant examples you’ve given. CSAM is also illegal in Portugal and it could quite easily be argued that Google does this to comply with local laws.

[Valynor]

It seems the discussion has run its course. Topic closed.