Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deletion of user account

soflow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Deletion of user account

#71

Post by andrewinardeer »

sen wrote: post #43
napolux wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't give them ideas... 19.90€/month to keep being deleted. Otherwise we will restore your account

The Reddit method of deletion. “It’s deleted… for now”

I 'deleted' one of my Reddit accounts today.

Turns out is is 'deactivated' which is certainly different from deleted.

Re: Deletion of user account

#72

Post by berkes »

SushiHippie wrote: post #54
berkes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually a legal requirement?

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

IANAL, but I don't see any requirement of it having to be "free". I probably miss something. And It would seem very much against the spirit, but is a company really not allowed to charge fees for "deleting"?

Re: Deletion of user account

#73

Post by ricardo81 »

creativenolo wrote: post #51
ricardo81 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting links, In the UK it's showing the initial link as costing £ 29,90. 'rip off Britain' I guess.

Would GDPR mitigate the need to pay?

Possibly. I've done GDPR requests in the past and been asked for ID to action the request and all other kinds of daft caveats, so YMMV.

Re: Deletion of user account

#74

Post by DaSHacka »

malfist wrote: post #67
napolux wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't give reddit ideas.

I mean they literally undeleted content deleted during the third party app protest

Do you have a source for this? I remember people talking about it being possibile for them to do (and now redact.dev even replaces old comments with randomly-generated sentences) but I don't recall them being caught actually doing it.

Re: Deletion of user account

#75

Post by dathinab »

RandomRandy wrote: post #3

Wouldn't a GDPR request regarding the right to erasure have the same effect and be free (if the company respects the GDPR)?

yes and for the account owner they must

- provide it for free and process it in due time

- not hide it trying to trick the user into "buying" something to delete their account

through if you have bought one but can not use it because someone else has an account with the hardware you bought from them then the person from which you bought it must do the deletion request for it to be covered by GDPR

and they probably could come up with some nonsense where the account is deleted by the device "stays locked" and you have to pay 20€ to unlock it for a new account

that might still be in violation of consumer protection law, but no longer has anything to do with GDPR and even in consumer protection law will be in a gray zone where you can do little but complain to official agencies

Re: Deletion of user account

#77

Post by oaiey »

gregjw wrote: post #57
creativenolo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would GDPR mitigate the need to pay?

I'd say so, yes. Right to deletion is a thing.

Administrative Processing Fees are a thing of GDPR. In most cases, however, this should not be a applicable for something as simple as an SQL statement from a button.

Re: Deletion of user account

#78

Post by wl »

oefrha wrote: post #37
grilledchickenw wrote: post #4

The wayback machine will always remember: https://web.archive.org/web/20240503105207/https://www.soflo...

It doesn’t. You can block their crawler with robots.txt and send DMCA takedown requests for archived pages as the domain owner which they will honor. Edit: I was under the wrong impression that if you specifically call out ia_archiver in robots.txt they would honor it. It’s been completely ignored since 2017.

Their crawler now ignores robots.txt.

Re: Deletion of user account

#79

Post by greatpatton »

dannyw wrote: post #41
Longhanks wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really not trying to be devil's advocate here, but the company is based in Switzerland, and neither Switzerland nor UK are in the EU.

If you offer something to EU residents, you have to comply with GDPR. Even if you are not part of the EU.

No if you operate in the EU you have to comply that's it. If you buy something from Joe the farmer in PA, you are the one importing it (you are paying the custom duties) and Joe the farmer doesn't have to comply with anything related to GDPR. If Joe the farmer wants to sell directly its product in the EU (not from the US) then he has to comply.

Re: Deletion of user account

#80

Post by rsynnott »

Scarblac wrote: post #63
Longhanks wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really not trying to be devil's advocate here, but the company is based in Switzerland, and neither Switzerland nor UK are in the EU.

Switzerland is part of the EU Internal Market through the EEA though and therefore has to implement many laws like this. It just doesn't have a say in them.

Switzerland's a bit of an oddity; it's actually not in the EEA, but in EFTA. It's not subject to the ECJ, but to EFTA Court (which is definitely not the ECJ wearing false moustaches). And it's not subject to the GDPR, but it has a law aligned to the GDPR.

EDIT: No, I'm wrong; while EFTA Court used to be based in Switzerland, Switzerland is no longer subject to it. It still exists, but only for EFTA members who are also EEA members. This whole thing is impossible to keep track of.

Post reply on HN