251–260 of 297 posts
So presumably the Norwegian government will be fined for publishing everyone's tax returns then :-)
Collecting and publishing tax returns would fall under "public duty".
The GDPR has always amazed me. It changed the playing field from "you can use our free app as long as you give us data for marketing or not use it" to "you can provide a free service in the EU as long as you dont collect data for marketing or dont provide it" Without making a judgement on the merits of the approach, as a user/individual I appreciate the power this gives to protect my data. As a company/developer the…
> As a company/developer the conplexity of navigating the landmines that this poses makes me understand why a lot non EU companies decide to just block EU users. The only places I've seen actually do this are local newspapers in the US. Are there many other substantial companies doing this? In general, dropping the EU is an expensive game: it's 450 million people, including many rich developed countries. GDPR doesn't…
I'd rather not interact with a company that disrespects my privacy and it's rather helpful they have to tell me this up front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Jein" (German for "yno"). Look at it in historic context. This article can be seen as an anti-holocaust clause. Don't collect data that was too often used to harm minorities.
Yet many data that aren't listed under it can also be used to harm minorities, and many data that are, can not. How exactly does biometric data to identify a person, but not a name and address to do the same differ in how much it can be used to harm minorities? They are both a means to uniquely triangulate the identity of a person, one is arbitrarily allowed but the other is not. It's as arbitrary as if not permittin…
SELECT address AS to_harm WHERE sexual_orientation IN ('unusual');Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like a fear of backlash - essentially if you find like 3% of the population with parking tickets it is fine. If you fine 40% to 60% then you get a large contingent pissed off at you - regardless of validity of the laws and enforcement unpopularity is perilous to laws and officials.
If 40% to 60% of population gets fined then that means the law is stupid* and should be abolished. Backlash on law enforcement is totaly understandable. *"stupid" is relative term. Laws are made for particular society, if almost a half of that society disagrees with the rule then it shouldn't be a rule.
And I don't think it's a fair statement that any large percentage of _people_ oppose this particular law; in my experience, most people don't seem to have a strong opinion about it, and those that do have a strong negative opinion very often don't really understand it (and are mostly reacting to the irritation that the various stakeholders are deliberately putting them through). Sampling the opinion of companies that live off ads is a bit like asking printer companies how they feel about toner prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No because GDPR has exceptions for state usage. Tax returns are not published but some key figures are available but you need to authenticate to retrieve it and it is logged and the log is available to the searched person.
The point is that comes across as hypocritical and makes the rationales come across as lies. "Consent for data sharing is important - except when we do it!" isn't a very good look even if there are valid reasons for tax return transparency it goes against their own stated principles.
As another example, the post office is allowed to collect and process your address, since otherwise they could not fulfill their contract to deliver your parcel (contractual obligations).
Similarly, paramedics don't need to worry about asking for consent from a patient that is unconscious: They can look into their medical records based on "vital interests".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an advertiser, not true at all. Promoting products to any niche smaller than "man" or "woman" basically requires targeted advertising to make work.
Couldn't this be done based on content, without looking at personal data? "Here is an article on investment. How about I show an ad of an investment bank." If only one company does it, they lose. But if everyone is forced to do it, noone will lose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet many data that aren't listed under it can also be used to harm minorities, and many data that are, can not. How exactly does biometric data to identify a person, but not a name and address to do the same differ in how much it can be used to harm minorities? They are both a means to uniquely triangulate the identity of a person, one is arbitrarily allowed but the other is not. It's as arbitrary as if not permittin…
A database of names and addresses does not tell you who in that list is a minority. You can't do: SELECT address AS to_harm WHERE sexual_orientation IN ('unusual');
How can I tell minority status from a fingerprint or retinal scan?
It seems rather arbitrary to treat name and address differently from fingerprints.
I would argue that minority status correlates more heavily with name than with retinal patterns.
So presumably the Norwegian government will be fined for publishing everyone's tax returns then :-)
There are 6 legal basis for collecting and processing personal data: Consent, legal requirements, vital interests, public duty, contract requirement and legitimate interest. Collecting and publishing tax returns would fall under "public duty".
The GDPR has always amazed me. It changed the playing field from "you can use our free app as long as you give us data for marketing or not use it" to "you can provide a free service in the EU as long as you dont collect data for marketing or dont provide it" Without making a judgement on the merits of the approach, as a user/individual I appreciate the power this gives to protect my data. As a company/developer the…
As a company/developer starting from scratch, there is really no complexity nor landmines : Do as you say, Say what you do, Give the user options. You can offer the user the choice between targeted advertising or non-targeted. You can offer the user the choice between paid subscription or advertising. Cant get enough users to pay or consent ? Then you did not find market-fit in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just looked up the relevant section in the GDPR, and it's actually pretty clear: It's section 9 "Processing of special categories of personal data" https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ > 1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identif…
So any data that does not fall under that blacklist is free game? I still find that quite arbitrary to make that distinction, not to mention the wiggle room it leaves with many of those categories being rather ill-defined. At what point does an opinion become “political”? what is “racial” an “ethnic origin” is quite open to interpretation; when is a belief “philosophical”? The way I understand this paragraph, it coul…
No. That list are data that are considered especially sensitive, and so it's generally prohibited to process personal data of this kind. As far as I can tell it's the strictest part of the GDPR, so it's probably also the easiest to enforce.
If some data doesn't fall into these "special categories", the rest of the GDPR still applies. The GDPR applies to any data linked to natural persons.