121–130 of 301 posts
[flagged]
I explained in the next sentence what makes me expect this: "Many of the less serious ones I read explicitly mentioned warnings that were ignored."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good to be reminded of how many backwards laws there are in the world. Every country is a little bit fascist and insane and it makes you appreciate the good parts of your own country.
Until you realize the "receiving end" of that: It also means that in those "fascist" countries, you have a right not to be filmed, even in public.
If you view the world from the point of view of [rights I have] vs [rights I don't have], you may as well be a happy pig in a cage. This worldview is in fact fascist, because it implies that the state should "give" you rights (giving you this type of right means taking away someone's freedom).
The opposite view is giving you the freedom to do anything as long as you don't attack someone (physically) or steal from them. If you want to prohibit something you must have good reasons, not "let's give everyone rights" or "it makes people feel bad".
Having a "right to not be insulted" means that you don't have the freedom to insult. i.e. you have no freedom of speech. If you put emphasis on the "right", you view the world like the pig in a cage, if you put emphasis on the freedom side, the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until you realize the "receiving end" of that: It also means that in those "fascist" countries, you have a right not to be filmed, even in public.
That's just a reductionist stance and when you follow that line of thinking to its conclusion then it would mean being illegal to record anything outside of your own house which is ridiculous because people need to film their kids going to the beach or take selfies in the mall. The negative side effects of prohibiting public photography greatly outweigh the positives.
There is a difference between taking a picture of your kid with someone in the background, and intentionally taking a picture of that person. And turns out that in practice, the law is able to distinguish those two even though technically they're quite similar.
Wow. Here's an crazy one: Someone was fined 2000 euros for using CC instead of BCC in his little mailing list newsletter of 150 people in Germany. "The fine was impossed against a private person who sent several e-mails between July and September 2018, in which he used personal e-mail addresses visible to all recipients, from which each recipient could read countless other recipients. The man was accused of ten offen…
So if a EU citizen's email id was part of the list, will it be liable for action according to GDPR?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unless you're sure you that can afford making these kinds of mistakes, don't provide a service on the internet DOT sounds good
Everybody makes mistakes. Which makes GDPR a recipe to hand over whatever remains of the Internet to only corporations that afford paying for them.
Wow. Here's an crazy one: Someone was fined 2000 euros for using CC instead of BCC in his little mailing list newsletter of 150 people in Germany. "The fine was impossed against a private person who sent several e-mails between July and September 2018, in which he used personal e-mail addresses visible to all recipients, from which each recipient could read countless other recipients. The man was accused of ten offen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just a reductionist stance and when you follow that line of thinking to its conclusion then it would mean being illegal to record anything outside of your own house which is ridiculous because people need to film their kids going to the beach or take selfies in the mall. The negative side effects of prohibiting public photography greatly outweigh the positives.
I disagree. I don’t give a fuck that you want to take a selfie. Don’t include me in it, period. I have a right not to be photographed. Of course... different strokes. That’s why different countries exist.
250K Euros to LaLiga for their app that tries to find bars illegally broadcasting their games by sampling user's microphones once a minute. I remember when it was discovered what it was doing thinking this must be a massive GDPR issue. I'm a little bit surprised that the fine is this low: "The national Football League (LaLiga) was fined for offering an app which once per minute accessed the microphone of users' mobil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can a dashcam possibly detect an accident? Wouldn't that basically start recording after the fact and hence be mostly worthless?
The dashcam will record into a, say, 5-minute buffer until the accelerometer registers a high value, at which point it starts writing into a new file (so the buffer becomes a permanent record of the 5 minutes prior to the incident). That's one way to implement it, one can come up with many others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I explained in the next sentence what makes me expect this: "Many of the less serious ones I read explicitly mentioned warnings that were ignored."
Many, but not all of them said this. Given that GDPR has absolutely no requirement that warnings be issued, it is not reasonable to expect that warnings were issued and/or ignored in cases where it doesn’t specifically say this occurred.
If, out of all the cases that we do know whether warnings were issued, warnings were in fact issued in the vast majority of them (or even 100% of the known cases), then for a case where we don't know and have no reason to believe is special, isn't the reasonable assumption that it's not special and is no different from the other cases?