I've been in the internet since the 80s.
Man what a nice thing we've built.
We have turned the internet into a network where people snitch on each other to marketers for fractions of a penny.
GDPR Hall of Shame
51–60 of 192 posts
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey there – Brian from Instapaper here – we have a pretty clear and accurate privacy policy around the data we collect and how we use it, you can find it here: https://instapaper.com/privacy
Hi Brian, thanks for replying to my post. I apologise for my reactionary tone above, but do you understand how by declining to share specifics your tweet aroused suspicion? EDIT: I've just read through your privacy policy and I wish other companies had a privacy policy as clear, straightforward and detailed.
How is this a big deal?
They probably sell your data or use it to show you ads or targeted content. Who cares?
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#53GDPR and policies like it are an existential threat to a Big Data future where so much can be possible if we are able to amass as much data as possible without fear of consequences. GDPR should be resisted by as many companies and startups as possible.
Whatever the case might be, companies have shown themselves to not handle people's personal data properly, as shown by the massive leaks in the past. Whatever utopia you're thinking of, it's not happening anytime soon, and GDPR is a rightful measure to slightly apply the brakes on rampant data collection and misuse.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#54I've been in the internet since the 80s. Man what a nice thing we've built. We have turned the internet into a network where people snitch on each other to marketers for fractions of a penny.
The 80s? Were you involved in ARPANet or something?
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#55Hey! I made this, mostly just to poke fun at my inbox being here in Europe and experiencing it first hand. Feel free to fire me a reply with any good ones you've spotted; I'll be actively adding through tomorrow and beyond.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#56The #2 one seems a bit off. "RE:" stands for Regarding. Yes it makes people look at your email, but it isn't "fake."
In every email program, RE: stands for Reply. RE: is prefixed to a subject for showing that the current email is a reply to an earlier email. That is what is deceptive. RE: is not Regarding in this context but appears designed to increase acceptance by lying about the recipient receiving a response to an earlier non-existent communication.
Email didn't magically change the meaning "Re" to "Reply." It still means regarding; it's regarding the subject of the previous email.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#57I want to know if credit card companies Mastercard, Visa, etc. are subject to GDPR. They definitely sell or use your purchase data for purposes unrelated to the service.
I believe that they do lots of internal analytics but do not sell identifiable data on a per-person level; the laws regarding nondisclosure of banking data are old, well established and much stricter - for starters, intentional disclosure of confidential banking information outside of certain (though many) particular exceptions is an actual maybe-go-to-jail crime, not just a civil matter with some fines.
Surveillance violates the privacy of common folk and thus is somewhat permitted, but violation of banking privacy threatens the rich and influential people and their (shady?) dealings, so that has always been restricted and actually enforced.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#58The Yahoo! one [1] is definitely in violation of GDPR, right? GDPR doesn't cover me as I'm neither in the EU nor am I an EU citizen, so I really hope someone lets the regulators know about this. The first major penalty will be example setting. Which made me curious: could a service exist where citizens not covered by GDPR submit complaints, so that a GDPR-covered citizen could put the complaint in formally? [1] Hidde…
Yahoo is bad, especially concerning the opt-in, but by far not the worst. Those are Google and Facebook, which have made all of their services "all-or-nothing". If you don't accept every single bit of data processing, your only alternative is to delete your account. Literally runs counter to everything the GDPR stands for.
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#59The #2 one seems a bit off. "RE:" stands for Regarding. Yes it makes people look at your email, but it isn't "fake."
Nitpick, but re is a word
Re: GDPR Hall of Shame
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
No its not just showing you ads. Its selling any information they have on you to ad networks without you knowing about it.
...so that you can be shown more ads.
...which is made possible by both directly and indirectly collecting, evaluating, sharing or trading, and concatenating data about you.