151–160 of 249 posts
In fact, anecdotally, it’s often the vocal critics of data-funded tech companies who post an archive.is version of every paywalled article.
One thing I'm wondering with these fines is whether they are actually "dissuasive". In particular, the revenue limit seems problematic. For a "normal" company whose profit margin is a relatively small fraction of revenue, 4% of revenue is huge. But for highly profitable large tech companies that make money primarily from ads, it may not be possible to issue a dissuasive fine if it is capped to 4% of revenue. Maybe "4…
And after that I expect compliance will be a much easier subject. So far the whole roll-out has been exactly as I expected it to be.
Unfortunately, data collection and data sales (either of the data directly or via targeted ads) is how many modern internet companies generate revenue. It’s easy to claim that they should just charge money directly for their product but their would-be customers seem to rather pay with their data than a monthly fee. In fact, anecdotally, it’s often the vocal critics of data-funded tech companies who post an archive.is…
The sooner companies start to realize that personal data is a liability rather than an asset the better. Happy to see this fine, but as far as I'm concerned given the kind of data we're talking about here it should have been higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
neat, this analogy travels pretty far - user data is radioactive. theres a background amount of radiation. its everywhere, even in higher amounts than youd expect like bananas and airplanes. no amount is safe, but the risks are neglibly small when exposure is minimized. concentrated amounts can be safe when exposure is controlled and managed with oversight programs in place. disasters can be managed with disaster pro…
Isn't the typical storage and handling for Uranium quite safe and even safer than oil ? Triuranium octoxide (Yellowcake): Yellowcake is as radiologically harmless as natural potassium-carrying minerals or thorium-oxide mantles used in paraffin fuel lanterns.
Grindr is incorporated in the US, I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this fine.
You put the company on a black list, then banks or other companies in EU or that have business in EU can't send them money or work with them, I am assuming they offer some subscriptions and other paid features so the banks not working with them will hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting indeed, it is what several German online newspapers do - they let you choose between a free version with tracking and a paid one without one. I find this argument a bit weird though: > Sharing Grindr's users personal data with advertising partners for online behavioural advertising purposes was not necessary for the performance of the Grindr's services. Charging money for your services is also not necessa…
Because society decided that it shouldn't be. It's a political decision that charging money (or displaying not personalized ads) is preferably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can try as hard as you can to wriggle out from understanding what this is all about but it is actually pretty clear: data supplied by an individual is the property of that individual, they have the right to informed consent on what it is used for, they can ask you to delete it, they can ask you to update it or review it. In some cases other laws (for instance: tax law) can make it mandatory for you to keep certai…
most of the data relevant to gdpr legal cases are not supplied by the user, they are collected indirectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting indeed, it is what several German online newspapers do - they let you choose between a free version with tracking and a paid one without one. I find this argument a bit weird though: > Sharing Grindr's users personal data with advertising partners for online behavioural advertising purposes was not necessary for the performance of the Grindr's services. Charging money for your services is also not necessa…
Why can't organs be considered as a means of payment? Not sarcasm - I think that while it's obviously a different scale, the reasons are similar and boil down to "we don't want that as a society" and "the environment this creates is not conductive to a free and informed rational decision". Many people don't understand the value of their data and the risk it poses, there is an information imbalance, there is a power i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are totally misinterpreting what GDPR is for , so it makes sense you'd be unable to recognize the benefits. Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to. And companies should not be able to capture that data, sell it and share it without explicit consent. Which GDPR does achieve.
> Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to This is an almost undefined concept. Data is not copyright, they are observations. Plus for many kinds of data ownership is hard to define, e.g. genetic data which is largely shared by all of us.
I think you're trying as hard as possible to misunderstand it.