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

241–250 of 308 posts

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

#241

Post by soco »

goosejuice wrote: post #166
jonhohle wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people now have devices with secure storage with them at all times. Maybe it’s time we owned our data and decided who gets it and when. Obviously this doesn’t work in all situations and for all people, but it’s a start.

I do wish this was an option for some data, but emergency care would be an absolute shit show. People can't even remember passwords let alone keep track of keys and devices.

Zero trust device, with emergency channels pre-trusted. Like, the ambulance service is known to your device and can already suck your blood type and whatnot. And the police your name and emergency contacts. Or whatever schema with a similar idea. There's the technology to do this already, but we're lacking awareness and initiative.

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

#242

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

engeljohnb wrote: post #17

I'm glad it all worked out for this individual. I hope more people live their lives like this as the dystopia progresses. 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, but also puts you at a significant disadvantage compared to the people that never push back in the interest of n…

This, honestly is what i expected AI to challenge heads-on- because that is what its ideal for- little agents arguing for the consumer, the customer, the citizen. In the government offices, these constant advocates could undo all that damage faster then the companies can pile up anti-service moats.

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

#243

Post by rurban »

rightbyte wrote: post #222
rurban wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you heard in school, defending the US style of fascism as "democratic". Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance. The US scheme of…

"Corporatism" not "cooperatism" though, right? Nothing wrong with cooperatism I think.

Oops, sure

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

#244

Post by sehansen »

aidenn0 wrote: post #37
tux1968 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like in Finland where speeding ticket fines are based on your income. For instance, in one well known case a businessman was fined €121,000 for going 82 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

That's considerably more than someone near me who was doing 245km/h in a 90 zone (Well 55mph which is 89km/h). I still don't know why that person didn't lose their license (other than the obvious fact that they were rich enough to afford the Lamborghini that they were driving in); it wasn't just any 55 zone, it was one with a reputation for being dangerous.

Damn, it sucks that people are allowed to get away with that kind of speed. Here in Denmark the mandatory minimum for doing over 200 km/h is losing your license for 3 years, confiscation of the vehicle and a ~$2000 fine. Unfortunately punishment isn't enough to get rid of this thing as around 1000 cars are confiscated each year. Some of them are confiscated for other reasons, like driving with a BAC above 0.2%.

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

#245

Post by rurban »

sehansen wrote: post #229
rurban wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you heard in school, defending the US style of fascism as "democratic". Fascism was a scheme to keep the old aristocrats turning industrialists to keep control of the state, whilst still keeping it under the democratic name. This was devised in the US in the 30ies and then in the old states also. Heavily supported by the US industrialists. Without them the fascism movement had no chance. The US scheme of…

That's pretty far from the usual views of fascism. Generally fascism can be seen as a form of right wing collectivism organizing all of society into one big hierarchy, with industrialist somewhat below the top and subservient to political leadership. In a fascist society political decrees override both laws and contracts. This means that fascism is inherently centralized and that what companies receive state support…

I call it fascism, even if the US ur-fascist favored the French and German model, over Mussolini. Mussolini was pro-union, and of course all other fascists are contra-union. That's their biggest goal, denying workers rights.

But the US implemented all the subsequent fascist governments until today. If in Europe, Asia or Latin America's.

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

#246

Post by setgree »

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.

Ah, I got confused by the name and acronyms.

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

#247

Post by vintermann »

lambertsimnel wrote: post #227
somenameforme wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts don't and can't override laws.

But if laws can override contracts (which presumably they can), then contracts can appear to establish permissions/restrictions that are illegal. At least one contract I've signed includes something about the rest being enforceable if any part of it isn't enforceable. Perhaps that helps to contain actual mistakes, but I assume employers use it to persuade employees that they're bound by illegal non-compete clauses, f…

> At least one contract I've signed includes something about the rest being enforceable if any part of it isn't enforceable.

Which is funny, because if it worked like that - that any unenforceable demand in it made the whole thing invalid - then presumably the clause asserting the opposite would also be invalid.

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

#248

Post by RetroTechie »

lambertsimnel wrote: post #227
somenameforme wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts don't and can't override laws.

But if laws can override contracts (which presumably they can), then contracts can appear to establish permissions/restrictions that are illegal. At least one contract I've signed includes something about the rest being enforceable if any part of it isn't enforceable. Perhaps that helps to contain actual mistakes, but I assume employers use it to persuade employees that they're bound by illegal non-compete clauses, f…

No it means that if parts of a contract are found to be unlawful or unenforceable, the rest of the contract still holds.

Edit: in other words, you're not legally bound to unlawful parts of a contract.

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

#249

Post by sehansen »

veltas wrote: post #185
gruelsandwich wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway has in practice only two big box electronics chains. Not always "pleny of alternatives out there"

All this regulatory overhead won't help competition.

Dropping these regulations won't help the competition either.

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

#250

Post by AlexanderHanff »

Hikikomori wrote: post #226
AlexanderHanff wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fine is largely irrelevant, now they have faced enforcement we have a decision to file a Representative Actions Directive (equivalent of a US class action) claim with - the cost of that will be 100-1000x more than the fine and will likely lead to shareholder revolt as well (institutional shareholders will likely sue the parent Currys PLC for breach of fiduciary duty and not disclosing these issues during earnings…

Did Elgiganten change how it works yet? Just for fun I signed up. During the signup they say that by becoming a member you accept that they will send things via email etc, but its optional to accept this, you can still click the signup button but then you don't get membership status, you just get an account. Then on the kundklubb page it says that you are not a member, if you click join it will automatically enable e…

Yes this is the difference, they did not allow you to opt out previously, they explicitly said that if you want to be in the club you have to accept their spam. Now they allow you not to accept their spam.

Now they rely on Soft Opt-In (which again might not be valid in your case, if you signed up to their site but didn't actually buy anything the soft opt-in exemption does not apply) so you may still have an actionable complaint here.

Post reply on HN