31–40 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You think standing in for people's rights against the profit interests of transnational corporations means "making life difficult"? Whose life exactly? That of the CEO of Microsoft?
Literally the comment I replied to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's the point. If the data pertains to you, it's yours. No "iff I pay for it".
wouldn't that mean every piece of cctv footage that has me in it also belongs to me? i don't see it (no pun intended).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit This is an incredibly bold statement, and something I really cannot relate to having lived in Europe for over a decade. It comes across as more of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who believes oversight or accountability of any kind is by definition a needless burden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
Oh, I assumed this was just about the views from the folks who hadn’t enabled the private viewing option.
This is the ludicrous part: > LinkedIn rejected the request on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence. Guess that implies that paying takes precedence on data protection
I think they should lose the case but I’m curious if anyone can think of a good argument for their side, at all (in the European context where there are data laws, “it’s their website they do what they want” is the conventional US perspective but I don’t really see what that leaves us to discuss).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going by that logic, they shouldn't be selling your data to their premium users. Either way, LinkedIn is on the wrong footing.
They can spin it as "the list of profiles you visit is your data", this list they'll probably give you if requested, but in addition they're also willing to sell you others' data (the list of people who visit you). Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.
Data often pertains to multiple people (trivial case: direct messages between two users); the rights of GDPR apply to your data, regardless of whether it also pertains to multiple others, subject to some restrictions to safeguard the rights of others. Those legal restrictions clearly don't apply because you could pay to obtain that access.
LinkedIn would need to prove in court that the list of users who visited your profile is not your data.
Additionally, your profile is undisputably your data. Per article 15 of the GDPR, you have a right to access "the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I assumed this was just about the views from the folks who hadn’t enabled the private viewing option.
It would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
Linkedin is the best thing what happened for phishing since 4ever.
If you have a profile there, you're already lost. They gather your data and even network layout if you just open linkedin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s a very European concept, that making life difficult is a worthy pursuit This is an incredibly bold statement, and something I really cannot relate to having lived in Europe for over a decade. It comes across as more of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who believes oversight or accountability of any kind is by definition a needless burden.
I’m an incredibly bold guy. And I would personally just stop operating in the EU if it was between that and being accountable to their bureaucrats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going by that logic, they shouldn't be selling your data to their premium users. Either way, LinkedIn is on the wrong footing.
They can spin it as "the list of profiles you visit is your data", this list they'll probably give you if requested, but in addition they're also willing to sell you others' data (the list of people who visit you). Not precisely a nice way to put it, but it seems consistent to me.