311–320 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies have had two years to get their act sorted out on this.
I can still purchase a "new" 2 year old phone. I think that is a valid question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If companies successfully argue that maximising revenue is a legitimate interest and thus, don't need users consent, then the GPDR will worth less the paper it was written on. I would be extremely surprised if the EU goes through all this tome, effort, and money just to let corporations continue with business as usual
Eu cookie law is one prior example of this. That worked out to “business as usual” in the end, didn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. As an American, reading the term rights associated with increased government control is nonsensical. I understand the European viewpoint, its just much different in America
> As an American, reading the term rights associated with increased government control is nonsensical. This is nonsensical. You can not have rights w/o government anyways. You may have privileges or power to force others to comply, but "rights" are defined by a third party entity that enforce them.
Enumerated rights are the rights the GP was talking about. These are defined in law, though may derive from natural rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can disable Google's ad targeting at any time: https://adssettings.google.com/ You don't have to pay anything. What you get instead is untargeted ads, like ads for cars, potato chips, and shampoo, just like on TV. Personally I find those to be a lot more annoying. Facebook's ad targeting can be similarly disabled under https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/?entry_product=ad_s...
"What you get instead is untargeted ads, like ads for cars, potato chips, and shampoo, just like on TV. Personally I find those to be a lot more annoying." Really? I kind of despise the targeted Ads. They're typically poor quality, and often it's some website I visited months ago to look at one product constantly dangling that product in my face in a desperate attempt for me to come back and buy it. Show me the cars…
This is the crux of the problems with how companies are interpreting the GDPR. Every service I've seen with a privacy policy pop up within the last 24 hours has basically justified all of their current data collecting practices as being necessary for their business. The spirit of the GDPR is to improve privacy, not just make Terms of Service pages longer.
Actually the spirit of GDPR is also to make Terms of Service shorter by being clear and understandable. If you as a user is unable to understand what you are agreeing to then it is a violation of GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GDPR is not against the ad business Yet somehow, I doubt that GDPR would exist if Google and Facebook were German companies, rather than American ones.
Is that relevant in any way? And Germans are more privacy aware than Americans, for obvious historical reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put simply: Americans prefer corporate overreach to government overreach. The latter is seen as only needed in extreme circumstances because there is often no going back. It's why you see hate for things like the cloud act and GDPR... it doesn't matter where they are enacted, some people don't want the government involved on these things at this point.
Genuine question: So Americans actually prefer the corporate Black Mirror-esque tracking and profiling that has become endemic and out of control over what I would consider a reasonable update to the old DPA? How is it overreach and how is it solved without regulation? Equally, how is there any going back from the corporate overreach without? Edit: typos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This becomes an email address you truly own, and your email provider cannot hold you hostage anymore. It's hardly yours. Using a custom domain for anything sensitive like banking is not a good idea. Your registrar is almost certainly a lot easier to phish/social engineer/whatever than Google.
> Your registrar is almost certainly a lot easier to phish/social engineer/whatever than Google. Please don't spread unsourced FUD. I'm not saying registrars are perfect (although Gandi, which I linked, has an impeccable track record), but everyone uses registrars for their domain name, even the biggest businesses out there. If you have a problem with a particular registrar, I invite you to source it and share it. Bu…
Everyone uses registrars, but in some cases you can be your own registrar. Like in Finland, when .fi domain registrations were moved to exclusively to registrars (initially you would register domains with Finnish FCC equivalent, later option was added to let registrar handle that for you and finally it was moved to just registrars), quite a few companies and individuals registered to become registrar for .fi domain.
GMAIL: trusthackerslounge2018 WEBSITE: https://trusthackerslounge.wixsite.com/mysite
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an American citizen I'm glad that GDPR exists. Our own government will never strongarm Big Tech into respecting their users - especially in this political climate - so I'm glad someone else is.
I think it is naive at best. To me, it's like the EU is a spoiled child who wants everything for free without paying for it. Most of the web is payed for by targeted advertising and getting rid of that would make the web suck as their would be way less money to actually pay for content. Also, non-targeted ads suck as they usually end up being like Viagra ads since they pay the most.