Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

thatprivacyguy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 308 posts

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#121

Post by sandworm101 »

ghssds wrote: post #116
socalgal2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure someone smarter than me has a solution. Those papers you're required to sign are generally the result of regulation. Some law got passed that say "you can't share info unless you get signed permission". The person dreaming up the law thought that would be enough to stop getting them to share info. But, even if they cared about privacy, they don't want to increase all their expenses and run their own IT depar…

> They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs. What is so hard in respecting the spirit of the law?

Becauae "spirit of the law" doesnt exist. It is a saying used by people when they want to do something that isnt in the law. You dont see lawyers, judges or law makers use the phrase.

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#122

Post by deepsun »

m0llusk wrote: post #39
deepsun wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.

This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.

If it said so in the contract I would not have any issues, something like "recordings of you are available only to authorized security personnel, can be provided to you upon request for a reasonable price covering filtering and other paperwork, and can be shared solely for security and legal purposes".

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#124

Post by somenameforme »

bigiain wrote: post #56
monkpit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.

That sounds a lot like a rationalization desperately grasping at "surely it's not as insane as it sounds, what it _must_ mean is ... " I would want to read and perhaps get legal advice before relying on that interpretation - and before finding I signed over rights to my landlord to make candid porn of me and all his other tenants.

Contracts don't and can't override laws.

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#125

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #96
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #91

how was 1.8M calculated? has any calculations been made on how much actual profit was made by these unlawful actions?

Page 33. Fine is calculated from annual worldwide revenue from previous year for the company. https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...

"guidelines say we should apply fine of 0.4% yearly revenue (400M NOK) at the least, but for whatever reason we decided punishment to be 20x less than that"

okay then...

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#126

Post by Terr_ »

arjie wrote: post #115
cwillu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLMisms The word is “cliches”, and they existed long before LLMs.

Haha they are cliches, yes. But a specific type of cliche that is unique to current language models. > That one sentence is the whole case This example, for instance, is more uniquely LLM than mere common cliche.

> cliche that is unique to current language models

If it's something humans don't do and unique to certain programs, then "cliche" is probably not the correct term.

"I read the article, but it was full of improperly-escaped HTML entity references, how cliche."

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#127

Post by karlgkk »

Retric wrote: post #14
anakaine wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if, as the regulator, you fail to benchmark what they gained then your laws can be ignored and your fines paid as simply a cost of doing business. Its why you find the Australian regulator for consumer affairs handing out $200m+ fines to telecommunications companies, for example.

By that logic regulators should lower fines if the action wasn’t profitable. Which creates an expensive legal fight around the net profits of some action were after guilt is determined. Instead, it’s much better to scale fines based on the scale of the entity involved, which also results in huge fines, but it’s easier to measure revenue. Thus the fines are more broadly effective, and you can still escalate if they do…

> By that logic regulators should lower fines if the action wasn’t profitable

No? You don’t need to adjust the floor, only the ceiling.

The goal is to prevent businesses from pricing fines into their margins.

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#128

Post by somenameforme »

trhway wrote: post #60
solid_fuel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason Yup. It's particularly sad seeing other people in this very thread talking about how they would "ban this customer for life" just for knowing their rights. I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes…

>I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now. DHS is putting on the domestic terrorists watch list those people who took parts in the protests. Or at minimum threatens to put. And i…

The current government? Don't let partisanship blind one to how dumb things are. The Occupy Wallstreet protests were extensively surveilled and harassed [1], and it was a vastly more peaceful protest movement. Had it gained more traction there's a 100% chance Obama would've happily greenlit COINTELPRO [2] 2011. Such actions were already being effectively carried out in any case.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Government_...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#129

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

monkpit wrote: post #35
smcleod wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?

It doesn’t mean _inside_ the apartment. It means if they decide to film a commercial and you’re walking your dog in the background, they don’t have to ask you.

It does mean on the property and including inside facilities.

Maybe that's at the gym or by the pool, and maybe you're actually not comfortable becoming a swimsuit model.

Re: I told them forced consent was unlawful. 5 years later it cost Elkjop €1.8M

#130

Post by gpm »

XelNika wrote: post #111
setgree wrote: post #105

The part about this that's amazing to me is that they still are doing nothing after he noted another GDPR violation [0]. He's obviously both competent and litigious. What does the company expect to happen next?? [0] "Under Article 77(2) of the GDPR a supervisory authority is under a binding legal obligation to keep a complainant informed of the progress and the outcome of their complaint. It is not a courtesy and it…

As I understand it, this second complaint is not against the original company, but against the government authority that handled his case.

There's two government authorities here, the one he reported it to (Swedish), and the one that the first one forwarded it to (Norwegian).

The former is the one he seems to be currently taking to task for failing to follow the law, the latter is the one that meaningfully handled the case.

Post reply on HN