301–310 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, since SAP as a company isn't handling any of that data, SAP isn't really affected. I am not sure that is completely correct, considering SAP's cloud offerings.
With EU based servers? Sure, GDPR applies. But so far I didn't hear anything about SAP not being compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make $100k in a year in wages, and after all your expenses you net $16k in savings, 1/8 of that is $2k. Imagine violating some law that harms children and your fine is $2k.
>Imagine violating some law that harms children and your fine is $2k. "Harms children". To make the analogy fair, imagine you're keeping a diary, and recording the observable information of every child that walks past your house. $2k seems like a reasonable fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unbelievable fines, that's the problem in this one case.
You've repeatedly claimed this fine is unbelievable, but that seems like a skill issue on your part. I have no trouble believing the reality of this fine. And tech corps should have no trouble believing it either. They better wisen up and respect the EU's laws if they think these fines are too large to bear (in reality, the worst violators can bear these fines just fine, and the EU should be issuing arrest warrants f…
Any breaking of the law in regards to children needs to absolutely incinerate the offending party, this fine seems like a drop in the bucket. Kids these days are bombarded by terrible industry practices because companies know if they can get a child hooked, they could be a customer for life(or at least a period of time in their adulthood). In the US, kids are advertised to at literally every corner of their life...in…
What is your frame of reference for considering 300+ million euro a drop ??
I was wondering, I've recently picked up Tiktok and on the live streams, despite it saying that you need 1000 followers and be 18 years old, I saw so many kids, live streaming. I was wondering why they didn't enforce their own rules. I'm guessing, too large amount of streamers, but even if you had only one dedicated person, you'd certainly find enough teens or children live streaming. So this is quite the timely ruli…
> why would people between 13 and 18 be prohibited from streaming? The parasocial relationship with an audience, especially a large one, does weird things even to adults.
This is a good start, but I'm going to be very curious to see if EU data law ever starts getting enforced against european companies at scale, as opposed to international companies.
The Irish DPC is also reportedly quite busy, by virtue of shouldering a disproportionate amount of the enforcement work for non-EU companies (due to tax-driven HQing there). They have taken cases against European entities as well however: notably they even even taken cases against the Irish government for violations around mandating biometric public service ID cards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With EU based servers? Sure, GDPR applies. But so far I didn't hear anything about SAP not being compliant.
I don't think the location of servers is relevant to GDPR. It's about storing and processing data of citizens of any EU member country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but SAP's business model doesn't depend on doing as much privacy violation as they can get away with (this is basically the business model of all adtech) so they're far less likely to fall afoul of the GDPR. The main risk to a company like SAP would be _accidentally_ falling afoul of the law; this tends to happen where companies are grossly negligent in their handling of personal data, and this is then exposed…
You are absolutely correct with this. I'm absolutely in favor of making it impossible for adtech to make any profit at all as long as they build their business on monetizing user data and exposing their users to all kinds of hazards. I find it funny that so few people here see a problem with that kind of behavior. It's as if they expect society to serve the market, instead of the other way around.