• coffeeClean@infosec.pubOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I guess a closer analogy would be rental storage. If you don’t pay your mini storage bill, in some regions the landlord will confiscate your property, holding it hostage until you pay. And if that fails, they’ll even auction off your contents.

    So in the case at hand the creditor is holding the debtor’s data hostage. One difference is that the data has no value to the creditor and is not in the creditor’s possession. It would be interesting to know if the contracts in place legally designate the data as the creditor’s property. If not, the data remains the property of the consumer.

    This is covered by human rights law. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 ¶2:

    “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

    If the phone user did not sign off on repossession of their data, and thus the data remains their property, then the above-quoted human right is violated in the OP’s scenario.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lemmy moment. Claims human rights are being violated because smartphone gets locked

      • coffeeClean@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Don’t try to strawman this. Human rights are violated when someone is deprived of their property (their data in the case at hand). If food is withheld from starving people in Gaza, your argument is like saying:

        “Claims human rights are being violated because someone failed to drive a truck”

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Someone not paying a phone bill doesn’t equate to someone bombing Israel

          • coffeeClean@infosec.pubOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            They’re not at odds. We don’t have to choose between protecting UDHR Art.3 and Art.17. It’s foolish to disregard some portion of the UDHR needlessly and arbitrarily.

      • owen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        He presented his logic and included well-recognised definitions and sources. He literally could not have done better without a peer review in the field 🤣🤣

        So: shut up bitch