The #2 one seems a bit off. "RE:" stands for Regarding. Yes it makes people look at your email, but it isn't "fake."
Yes but it's most commonly used in the medium of email as an indication of a reply.
GDPR Hall of Shame
31–40 of 192 posts
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#32The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.
I think the instapaper one is just they aren't compliant yet, realize it, and are shutting down EU access until they reach compliance. There can be ways they are not compliant without necessarily selling data.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#33My favourite at the moment is sendwithus. They said their service will never be GDPR compliant. But fortunately they have a new "enterprise grade" product called sendwithus dyspatch. Same feature set, new price plus GDPR compliance. This is a price jump from $79/Month to a minimum of $24.000/year. And this is with discount for former sendwithus users. I would consider this to be mafia methods.
If they are offering the $79/month service in the EU, it doesn't matter that they have a GDPR compliant version. They won't be able to sell the non-compliant version right?
The problem is you won't get an Data Processing Agreement (DPA) from them. And since email and names are sent through the service the DPA is mandatory. If someone somehow manages to detect your are sending his data to a non-compliant service you can get sued.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#34Hugged to death already?
Sorry, had to go up a few sizes on DigitalOcean
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#35The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.
> So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. No, it can something as simple as "we cannot guarantee that all your data is deleted with our current storage system". It would be a lot better if people stop being so alarmist.
Why can't they comment on it? It's very suspect.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#36The EU Commission's very own website deserves an honourable mention at least.
Last time I looked (just a few days ago) it was the epitome of "What you're not allowed to do anymore according to GDPR.": Tracking and other cookies with no way to opt out, no privacy policy etc.
Then again, GDPR of course doesn't apply to them. The very least they could do in my opinion, however is to lead by example.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#37The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.
> So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. No, it can something as simple as "we cannot guarantee that all your data is deleted with our current storage system". It would be a lot better if people stop being so alarmist.
If it were something that simple and reasonable, they'd be happy to say so.
The fact of not giving an explanation implies that the real explanation is worse that you would expect.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#38The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.
That's extremely uncharitable.
I think we should reserve opinion here until bthdonohue gets back with fiiv's comment of "But what part of GDPR was it that caused you to have to close off European Union users?"
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#39The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.
Hey there – Brian from Instapaper here – we have a pretty clear and accurate privacy policy around the data we collect and how we use it, you can find it here: https://instapaper.com/privacy
Hi Brian, thanks for replying to my post. I apologise for my reactionary tone above, but do you understand how by declining to share specifics your tweet aroused suspicion?
EDIT: I've just read through your privacy policy and I wish other companies had a privacy policy as clear, straightforward and detailed.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#40Hugged to death already?
Sorry, had to go up a few sizes on DigitalOcean
Curious: what tier were you using and what tier did you move up to? In case I ever get to the frontpage, I'd like to be prepared :)
And usually, what is it that causes outages like HN/reddit's hug of death? Number of open sockets / file descriptors? RAM? CPU? Network congestion?