51–60 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP addresses are PII, as defined in the law. Every website you visit gets your IP. HN has yours now, and now had a headache to deal with.
Reconfigure your server to stop logging IPs, and/or stop storing logs forever. Here, done.
I am trying to think what the secondary consequences of GDPR are going to be. If any user can see their data on any service than any government can quickly plug-in to access all user data on any service. This is like NSA Prism for everything. If a user can export their data easily from any service, they can easily resell their own data for money to services that seek to monetize that data. They could even rent out th…
What do you think changed for governments? If there is a search warrant, police could and still can access data. GDPR didn't change anything in this regard. My feeling is that in the EU there is a different view of government: it's not a third adversarial entity. Many other remarks you've made don't have anything to do with GDPR, for example fake accounts and takeovers.
That should be the de facto stance regarding government in democratic countries, in my opinion.
The government is a third party that intermediates, fundamentally, between:
* individuals/groups of individuals and other individuals/groups of individuals, all inside the same country
* itself and the governments of other countries
The first point is very important, a society of a big enough scale, in the absence of hierarchy invariably degenerates into an anarchy where the only law is the law of the jungle: the strongest survive. That's why we add this third party that can intervene for the weak. This third party can be corrupted by various interests, but the hope is that these interests balance themselves out.
And even a corrupt state is better than no state at all (or even a very weak state). Look at current day Somalia, Iraq post 2001, Libya post 2011.
It's about time to see no-win no-fee services to file a complaint against companies for GDPR breach. How long will it take?
It doesn't mean it won't happen, but that would be unusual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not "unintended consequences", it is explicitly anticipated by the law. Which is why people can and are suing. We'll see how it shakes out in the courts.
The law explicitly said "within hours of taking effect, these specific companies are to be sued due to not preparing sufficiently for GDPR"?
I am reading through the complaints, The first one: https://noyb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/complaint-android... The User sets up a "new" (non Google) phone, and isn't given an option to decline consent to Googles ToS. Now how does this work with a physical product? It needs to be compliant on the 25th of May 2018, but the version of Android may be old and not updated (given its Android). Even if there was an upda…
Companies have had two years to get their act sorted out on this.
Erm... I don't think that's true.
As long as you are open and transparent about what you are doing, and give users the right to request, update and delete the data you hold on them, then AFAIK this is allowed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Within hours” You mean “within the 2 years probation period + a few hours”
GDPR has been law for two years, since 25 May 2016, a point your downvoters seem to be missing.
> "The GDPR explicitly allows any data processing that is strictly necessary for the service - but using the data additionally for advertisement or to sell it on needs the users' free opt-in consent" This is the key point. As the saying goes, on Facebook, you aren't the customer, you are the product. The GDPR just changed this -- rightfully, in my opinion.
The 'loophole' here would be the definition of 'legitimate intrests', where businesses can defend not giving users a choice in many of these matters due to the activity being critical for the service to work or the business to survive. I.e. Facebook _could_ argue that users would have to have their data collected and analysed, as this would enable them to sell ads which in turn is their core interest. Another example…
Somebody on Reddit posted a list of Tumblr's "partners" that they share data with by default: https://i.imgur.com/YCNvEMa.png I'm finding it difficult to believe that they can come up with a "legitimate interest" for all of those that would also actually hold up in court.
The 'loophole' here would be the definition of 'legitimate intrests', where businesses can defend not giving users a choice in many of these matters due to the activity being critical for the service to work or the business to survive. I.e. Facebook _could_ argue that users would have to have their data collected and analysed, as this would enable them to sell ads which in turn is their core interest. Another example…
Somebody on Reddit posted a list of Tumblr's "partners" that they share data with by default: https://i.imgur.com/YCNvEMa.png I'm finding it difficult to believe that they can come up with a "legitimate interest" for all of those that would also actually hold up in court.