Is it legal to publish the name of the requestor? Name and shame?
If you post it, you'll get your own letters from him demanding you forget him or be in violation of GDPR.
Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
161–170 of 534 posts
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you want none of your personal info on the web, I have a suggestion: Don't participate in forums, social media, etc. Facebook and other data aggregators build profiles of you even if you don't participate directly in those services. The web is different now than it was in 1996.
And GDPR doesnt help with that. I cannot send Facebook a request for my shadow profile, nor demand they delete all such data, as I have no way to ‘identify myself’ to them unless I have a Facebook account.
Yeah I don’t think the data protection authority will agree with that. You should file a complaint at your data protection authority.
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
"usually" is the problem.
how is interpretation of the law not a problem with any law that was in effect before GDPR. It didn't stop anybody from starting businesses before and will not after.
It's punishment amounts. Laws should strive for minimal maximums and reasonable ranges to apply that interpretation in. We don't say every crime is punishable up to a life sentence for a reason. The more leeway the law provides, the more room for abuse (for either side). It would not have been hard to define multiple reasonable ranges, but sadly they think these values are what gives the law "teeth" (instead of actual enforcement which is what should provide it).
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#164Overbearing legislation applied by unelected representatives is being abused. If only there were technical solutions provided with an assumption of goodwill instead of 88 pages of mandates without such an assumption.
Legislation is usually applied by unellected people. Judicial independence is usually seen as a good thing. Perhaps you mean that the law was enacted by unellected people, which is also incorrect of course? So now I don't see your point at all?
[deleted]
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law has been proposed by the European Commission who is just nominated not elected.
The European Commission's members are sent there by the national governments. Elect another parliament/government if you don't like who yours did sent.
It's easier to vote "yes" in an quit the EU referendum than what you suggest. Which is what the Brits actually did. The former works while the latter doesn't.
We don't elect governments over here, just Parliament and President.
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want none of your personal info on the web, I have a suggestion: Don't participate in forums, social media, etc. sensible regulation that defines workable limits of what personal information can be collected, combined with requirements for anonymization when needed is a better solution.
Some of the early results we are seeing from GDPR make one question how ‘sensible’ it really is.
This is exactly what happens when you look to lawyers to solve social problems.
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#167Overbearing legislation applied by unelected representatives is being abused. If only there were technical solutions provided with an assumption of goodwill instead of 88 pages of mandates without such an assumption.
How are the representatives "unelected"? The European Parliament is elected every five years by the citizens of all EU member states and voted on the GDPR in 2016 after long talks. Some even say that the GDPR is not hard enough.
The GDPR was passed by the European Comission, not the EP. Members of the EC are appointed, just like ministers in governments. But governments can only pass time limited decrees which then have to be signed into laws and voted for in Parliament. The EC which can pass binding regulations that apply indefinitely.
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#168People asking to exercise their rights on their own private information are not trolls.
> exercise their rights These aren't their natural right. Some laws are just bad independent of whether most people support or agreed to them. This is most obvious in dictatorships, but dysfunction strikes all systems.
I agree. The "rights" outlined in GDPR are hysterical frivolities concocted by madmen with a backwards understanding of freedom and justice. In the future of the EU I predict a "right to have everyone else in public pretend you aren't there and not look directly at you for more than 500 milliseconds in a 5 minute window" and "right to have free peanutbutter on wednesdays."
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you walk into a store and buy something, does the owner not have a right to record relevant personal information as it pertains to the sale, such as when buying a car? This idea that those vendors ought to be required to delete records seems backwards — you aren’t required to interact with entities that do things you don’t like — unless it’s the government, no escaping that. Public records are potentially more har…
The owner of the store does have the right to record the sales transaction data. But that was never under dispute even with GDPR. GDPR specifically says that you do not have the right to be forgotten in the information is important for legal compliance (e.g. tax records), free speech, and a couple of other things. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da... See “when does [it] not apply?” GDPR alr…
> GDPR already applies to governments. What makes you think it is not?
This, for example:
> Germany's spy agency can monitor major internet hubs if Berlin deems it necessary for strategic security interests, a federal court has ruled.
> In a ruling late on Wednesday, the Federal Administrative Court threw out a challenge by the world's largest internet hub, the De-Cix exchange, against the tapping of its data flows by the BND foreign intelligence service.
> The operator had argued the agency was breaking the law by capturing German domestic communications along with international data.
> However, the court in the eastern city of Leipzig ruled that internet hubs "can be required by the federal interior ministry to assist with strategic communications surveillance by the BND".
https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-spy-agency-keep-tabs-inter...
Re: Shutting Down Forum (GDPR)
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European Commission's members are sent there by the national governments. Elect another parliament/government if you don't like who yours did sent.
That’s like saying if you don’t like a police officer then elect a different city council. Parliament members don’t campaign on who they’ll nominate to the EU commission. Brexit can’t come fast enough.
Thank God for the Queen and the Lords eh?