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

281–290 of 308 posts

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

#281

Post by Retric »

coldtea wrote: post #263
Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The logic isn't some rigid "make the fine based on the profit". The logic is based on the intent: make the behavior happen less. So you can have a base fine of X, even when there's no profit or even if there are losses, and have a scalable fine based on higher profits. This way the company is discouraged to do the bad behavior in general,…

Nobody is giving people at a government agency the authority to write arbitrary fines, there’s going to be at minimum guidelines.

If the base fine is X, then every actual fine would be X + Y where Y is the profit motive causing the behavior. As such every court case is now also a fight about lowering Y and companies are incentivized to make Y appear lower etc.

Further as companies vary in size generally at large companies Y will be vastly larger than X meaning lowering Y is nearly as valuable at winning.

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

#282

Post by LorenPechtel »

deepsun wrote: post #156
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.

Well the document didn't say "public spaces". I also think they meant public spaces, but it wasn't in the documents. Even then, I do not consent to work as an unpaid actor even in public spaces. I'm ok to be it at conferences, organized coworking parties -- no problem. But my living space when I don't suspect it -- hell no.

It isn't really that onerous, they aren't expecting you to do anything.

Rather, they want the right to film commercially on their own property without getting consent of everyone walking by. Many years ago a local casino was being used for a movie shoot, there were signs at the door saying that they're shooting a movie in here, if you're inside the casino it's possible you'll show up in the background of a shot. By entering you agree to this. An apartment can't do something like that because not entering is not a realistic option, so they're putting it in the rental agreement instead.

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

#283

Post by monkpit »

wtallis wrote: post #98
computerdork wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am pretty sure he's right. I rent out my house, and it is very illegal for the landlord to record video inside the house (or even of the driveway). You are infringing the privacy of your tenants and is a huge no-no. Yeah, if you accidentally recorded families walking through their homes unclothed, this could land a landlord in jail.

The contract terms could very well have actually had a meaning that included filming inside the apartment. The existence of other laws overriding the contract isn't actually the same thing as the contract not having that invasive meaning.

You can’t make a contract that breaks the law, it doesn’t work that way. It’s unenforceable and doesn’t hold up in court.

Otherwise, you could just make contracts anytime you wanted to break the law for any reason.

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

#284

Post by cwillu »

berege wrote: post #197
cwillu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cliches in general did, llms created new ones even though you may not be adept at recognising them

Someone with tinnitus hears tones that aren't there, that doesn't make them adept at hearing tones. You will reply some analogous comment about deafness, but here's the thing: tinnitus is much more common than deafness.

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

#285

Post by thaumasiotes »

AlexanderHanff wrote: post #176
buzer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we cannot be sure what Elkjøp exactly told him, the Norwegian DPA's findings included following: * Published benefits: https://web.archive.org/web/20220613175535/https:/www.elkjop... (e.g. "Rabatt på en rekke av våre tjenester utført i varehus", i.e. something like "Discount on a number of our services performed in warehouses") * Conditions to join, i.e. to receive the benefits (DPA's translation): * You may be…

Which is exactly the point - under Article 21 of the GDPR every person has a legal right not to be subjected to direct marketing so any forced direct marketing is unlawful and consent cannot be bundled (it must be specific under the GDPR) so bundling consent to direct marketing along with consent to join the Club is not lawful. Which is why my next step is litigation.

> Which is exactly the point

The point in this subthread is that your article says the opposite of what you appear to have meant. You don't provide anything other than what is apparently a very bad English translation. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that you meant to write something different, but it threw me for a loop when I read it and clearly I am not alone.

This is why, when I'm reporting my translation of something in a foreign language, I tend to include the original text too.

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

#286

Post by comfysocks »

cheese_van wrote: post #102
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…

Went to a new doctor. As part of the check-in process, I was asked to "sign" a little digital pad, so, as I was told, they could properly use my insurance. I asked to see the hard copy of what I was signing and they couldn't find one. Then, for some reason, they were unable to print one. I gave up and scribbled my sig with my finger and then was seen by a doctor. It's maddening.

I had a similar experience at a bank some time ago. To sign up, you had to sign a digital pad without seeing what you were signing first. You could get a copy mailed to you later. At that future time, I was told, you could you cancel the agreement if you found it objectionable.

Being a bank, this has nothing to do with HIPAA. Just a dark pattern.

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

#287

Post by Telaneo »

sandworm101 wrote: post #275
oarsinsync wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is dependent on jurisdiction. Some countries (e.g. the USA) do not consider spirit/intent (anymore), as the judiciary has repeatedly ruled that the letter of the law, as written, is what matters, regardless of whether it meets th…

Intent is expressed through drafter's notes or explanations. "Spirit" is somerhing else, something made up later by people who had nothing to do with th3 creation of the law.

> The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two ways of interpreting rules or laws. To obey the "letter of the law" is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the "spirit of the law" is to follow the intention of why the law was enacted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

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

#288

Post by geon »

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.

That is already allowed.

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

#289

Post by Telaneo »

cwmoore wrote: post #153
dgellow wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they obviously do use it?

I agree but please, provide citations instead of a question mark, to make what you believe is obvious actually in fact obvious.

> New combinations of circumstances — that is, new cases — constantly call for the application, which means in truth the extension of old principles; or, it may be, even for the thinking out of some new principle, in harmony with the general spirit of the law, fitted to meet the novel requirements of the time.

Law And Public Opinion In England, page 361 -> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40146/page/n38...

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

#290

Post by Telaneo »

wongarsu wrote: post #224
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…

Are you even legally signing anything if they can't show you the document you are signing? I am not familiar with the nitty gritty of US law, but under German law that signature would be worthless. Even signing a document you have but are unwilling to read is legally a bit iffy (which is why for things like real estate a notary will read the paperwork to you and ask if you understood it, or why surprising clauses in…

It probably would be unenforceable in the US too, given you have no opportunity to know what you're signing, but you'd probably have to drag it before a court to settle that, and US companies know that no* individual is actually going to do that over what ultimately is (likely to only be) a minor inconvenience.

* Within margin of error

Post reply on HN