71–80 of 144 posts
So far I have received over 300 GDPR emails. When I am supposed to read all this? How do I track it? How can I track what each company stores about me? Do I feel this in any way improved safety of my data? I don't think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Processors" need theoretically not be advertising/tracking networks, but could also e.g. be payment processors. That is something that I could imagine classifies as necessary.
Consent must be given for a specific purpose. It is debatable whether a generic "we need to share your data with our processors" is sufficient. I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Today I opened my fridge wondering if I'll see a note about an updated privacy policy inside. It's ironic seeing that the law was in power for the last 2 years, but companies woke up only last week. A lot of those mails are only information, with no (clearly marked) link to a consent panel, so I assume that me ignoring them means they won't be allowed to spam me anymore.
You're joking, but my fridge did hand me a GDPR notice in the morning: https://twitter.com/varjag/status/998496423019778048
"To make Medium work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use Medium, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy." No Medium, I must NOT agree to your privacy policy and your cookie policy, because to use and share my data you need my FREE consent. AND you can NOT deny me reading an article without giving consent, because then the consent is not FREE, and it is NOT strictly necessary…
Why is it a problem that you have to agree to be monetized to read a stupid blog post? If you don't like those terms, go read something else. If you refuse their terms, it seems obvious to me that they should be able to refuse to serve you. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this sounds like asking for a free lunch.
Do you want my opinion or what the gdpr says?
My opinion is that my data is not a commodity exchange. We (I) usually use money for that.
The gdpr says
"When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract."
So they can politely ask me for my data to read the blog post, and I can politely refuse to give it to them. And if my data is not necessary for letting me read the blog post (it is not) then they have to let me read it anyway.
> If you don't like those terms, go read something else.
That is what I did. I left the site. But this is not what I am angry about. They are lying by saying that i MUST consent to their terms.
> If you refuse their terms, it seems obvious to me that they should be able to refuse to serve you. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this sounds like asking for a free lunch.
User data is not money. User data is user data. I am not asking for free lunch.
So far I have received over 300 GDPR emails. When I am supposed to read all this? How do I track it? How can I track what each company stores about me? Do I feel this in any way improved safety of my data? I don't think so.
In theory, if you don't reply, all these companies should stop using your data and quite likely delete it. Sounds like improving safety for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can't, but they can, for example, ask for a fee to read the article. They don't deny you reading it, but they don't have to give it to you for free either. Of course they can charge a fee. They should. > Either you share your data, so they can make money to operate the site, or you don't, but then the content is not free. No. My data is not a commodity exchange. The GDPR makes that VERY clear. I can not pay wi…
You can pay with your data if you consent to it. It's your data, your choice. But if you don't consent then prepare your credit card for payment. Most people then will choose the free version.
No I can not. I can pay with money. User data is not money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, if you don't reply, all these companies should stop using your data and quite likely delete it. Sounds like improving safety for me.
No this is not correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No this is not correct.
I think I may agree with you, but to say something like that you also need to say why you don't think it's correct, otherwise it's pretty unhelpful.