Had an individual person done this, the law would have been on him quicker than lightning[1]. But when a company does it, it gets off with a trivial fine.

 To be fair, a company wouldn't stalk and kill me, whereas an individual person 'just might'.Don't read too much into this comment...just saying I'm not surprised if the law comes down quick as lightning on an individual person who is doing such creepy stuff, whereas companies can...
 You might want to look at the history of a certain banana dealer before making the statement that a company wouldn't stalk and kill you[1]. A bit of a bizarre story, but don't rule such things out.You are right though, the fine for such behavior was pretty small.
 "To be fair, a company wouldn't stalk and kill me, whereas an individual person 'just might'.""Who's being naive, Kay?"-Michael Corleone, The Godfather
 It's a perfect example of correlation not equating with causality!1) A company is more likely to stalk you than any person. 2) A company is more likely to cause your death than any person.
 That may be true, but I think the conditional probability that a person will kill you, given that they are stalking you, is much higher than the probability that a company will kill you after stalking you. The fact that an individual is stalking you is more significant than the fact that a company is.
 At least individuals have dignity enough to warn you that they are planning to kill you! :pBut inserting conditional probably doesn't change anything:P(A) >= P(A|B)
 Your inequality is backwards.
 Nope. P(A) will always be greater than or equal to P(A|B). Assume P(B)=1. What's P(A|B)? P(A).You're still right about your claim, it's just that I don't really care if a corporation is more likely to kill me anyway. Then the world goes all bizarro and you want a corporation to spy on you! (Your conditional probability statement would imply that it is safer to be spied on by a corporation. Please, take all off my personal information! I don't wanna dieeeee!)
 A person from that company could stalk and kill you?
 IANAL but a company is probably required to guard the data internally, and an employee who's alleged of being somehow related to usage of that data for actions described would likely be a very serious problem for the whole organization. It's also reasonable to expect from an employee at a serious company to value their position and not to be crazy.This is what makes me think of a company as less likely to attack me in this particular way than an outside individual, but I may be wrong.
 This comment is amusing because network admins at google have been in trouble for abusing their access to harass and stalk underage girls.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Search: