The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
out of curiosity, I looked at my google advertising profile
Huh. Didn't know you could do that. Where do you find it?
-
@Mason_Wheeler Google account settings. Privacy and personalization. Ad Personalization.
-
@levicki If you're going to sarcastically invoke "tried and true", the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate why it is not in fact true.
-
@levicki more that I agree that there's some theoretical nastiness, but don't see why this thing is worth so much bother. There are already laws in place against the things that actually cause damage, so enforce those. The whole mess just seems like either (or both) an ill-thought-out virtue signal (look at how we're protecting you!) similar to the mess of airport security post 9/11 or/and a power grab of the "we're from the government and are here to help" variety.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Before the internet, if you wanted to target a significant amount of customers in another country, you opened a shop in that country and had to abide by its laws. Why should the internet work differently?
Because the Internet does work differently. The "shop" is the server. If the server is located in the USA, then no law outside the USA has jurisdiction over that server. Period. Not gonna budge on this one, because giving ground here leads to madness. I'm sure there are plenty of laws from North Korea that my web presence is violating, and probably yours too. I don't care. Do you? Under your line of reasoning, you have to care about that!
I'm pretty sure that if your US shop is actually selling stuff to people in North Korea that your own Justice Department would like to have some words with you.
You could have chosen a better example.
-
@Rhywden I never said that it is. I said that just because I'm online doesn't mean that another nation's laws, such as those of North Korea, apply to me.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden I never said that it is. I said that just because I'm online doesn't mean that another nation's laws, such as those of North Korea, apply to me.
We're talking about providing services here, not merely being online. Stop
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
you don't have privacy rights on things you do on other people's property
ofcourse I fucking have ... the privacy of my person doesn't end when I leave my house, it's tied to my person and not my location.
Or is it ok to peep on people in dressing rooms?
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
you don't have privacy rights on things you do on other people's property
ofcourse I fucking have ... the privacy of my person doesn't end when I leave my house, it's tied to my person and not my location.
Or is it ok to peep on people in dressing rooms?The store owner has the right to monitor the dressing rooms. If you do something nasty in a dressing room, you can't claim privacy to get out of trouble.
-
@Benjamin-Hall The sad thing is, these days someone probably could...
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
The store owner has the right to monitor the dressing rooms. If you do something nasty in a dressing room, you can't claim privacy to get out of trouble.
Not in all states. And if it's allowed then only to prevent theft. If you, as the store owner, use the videos of your dressing room for anything else then you will be in a world of pain.
Also, weirdly enough, if the states allow survellance they also usually mandate that you prominently inform the customer about that.
Sort of like a certain set of laws we're debating here. Weird.
-
@Luhmann said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
you don't have privacy rights on things you do on other people's property
ofcourse I fucking have ... the privacy of my person doesn't end when I leave my house, it's tied to my person and not my location.
Or is it ok to peep on people in dressing rooms?A better example would be bath rooms.
-
I decided to take a look at the actual protected categories of information for the GDPR, and it revealed a huge gap between what most Americans think of as "personal information that shouldn't be shared" and what the EU think of in that category.
Article 9 section 1:
Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
Racial or ethnic origin: uh...yeah. That's not private here at all. Not in any sort of way.
Political opinions: in the US, your party affiliation is public information, and by this standard, 99% of Twitter is illegal. It's certainly not protected information, and most Americans would look at you like
for saying it should be.
religious or philosophical beliefs: yeah, no. Certainly not a privacy matter here at all.
trade union membership: considering that's a requirement to work in some jobs...no. Not private information. Especially since it's held by 3rd parties routinely as part of doing business.
processing of genetic data: this one's more reasonable. But applies to a tiny fraction of anyone out there.
biometric data for the purposes of identifying a natural person: ok, we can agree on this one. But also, only a tiny fraction and selling such for identity theft purposes is already illegal.
data concerning health: That's an awfully broad subject. If processing such data is prohibited, that's gonna be a pain on things like Google Fit, step trackers, food trackers, weight history apps, etc. But still, only a tiny fraction of the internet.
data concerning [sex/sexual orientation]: sort of private, but very likely to be gathered because you explicitly shared it with the company. So don't do that if you care about it. And blackmail and harrassing people for such things is already illegal.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, well, you guys sort of squandered this position of a moral highground with your current leadership so forgive us if we don't care about what you guys think.
It's kind of nice for once having you dance to our tune.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
The store owner has the right to monitor the dressing rooms. If you do something nasty in a dressing room, you can't claim privacy to get out of trouble.
Not in all states. And if it's allowed then only to prevent theft. If you, as the store owner, use the videos of your dressing room for anything else then you will be in a world of pain.
Also, weirdly enough, if the states allow survellance they also usually mandate that you prominently inform the customer about that.
Sort of like a certain set of laws we're debating here. Weird.
That strongly depends. And I'm talking about non-statutory rights here (as statutory rights can be whatever the heck they want to be without regard for reason). You don't have an inherent privacy right on other people's property. Statutes and contracts (or policy) can give you recourse for certain actions, but they don't make an inherent right.
Now there are some exceptions (at least in the US). Bath rooms (sort of, to a lesser degree), paid-for hotel rooms, and rented dwellings count as places you have an expectation of privacy. But out and about in the store? No. Not at all.
I'd wager that even in the absence of laws, stores that tried to sell dressing room camera footage would either a) suffer incredible backlash or b) attract only exhibitionists. So those policies would develop real darn quick. On the contrary, most of the "important information" above is just stuff that people don't care about sharing, because they do it openly. Heck, you have to work to stop people from telling you (and everyone else) about their political and religious beliefs.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, this is the notion of "let's damage things first, then try to clean the mess up" which has you made so loveable.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, well, you guys sort of squandered this position of a moral highground with your current leadership so forgive us if we don't care about what you guys think.
It's kind of nice for once having you dance to our tune.
So basically assuming the conclusion (these things should be protected because we say they should). Nice logic there. It's a difference of values, and you're going to have to work a lot harder to convince someone that their values are wrong. Doing so by force is rather the reverse of the "moral high ground". It's an exercise of naked power, which has zero convincing value. Just like telling a kid "because I said so."
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, well, you guys sort of squandered this position of a moral highground with your current leadership so forgive us if we don't care about what you guys think.
It's kind of nice for once having you dance to our tune.
So basically assuming the conclusion (these things should be protected because we say they should). Nice logic there. It's a difference of values, and you're going to have to work a lot harder to convince someone that their values are wrong. Doing so by force is rather the reverse of the "moral high ground". It's an exercise of naked power, which has zero convincing value. Just like telling a kid "because I said so."
I'm not going to educate you on the reasoning behind this. Do that for yourself. The info is out there.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, well, you guys sort of squandered this position of a moral highground with your current leadership so forgive us if we don't care about what you guys think.
It's kind of nice for once having you dance to our tune.
So basically assuming the conclusion (these things should be protected because we say they should). Nice logic there. It's a difference of values, and you're going to have to work a lot harder to convince someone that their values are wrong. Doing so by force is rather the reverse of the "moral high ground". It's an exercise of naked power, which has zero convincing value. Just like telling a kid "because I said so."
I'm not going to educate you on the reasoning behind this. Do that for yourself. The info is out there.
Note that I started by asking for actual harms done. And got nothing except fear-mongering (theoreticals and feeling-based arguments). So no. I was willing to be persuaded, based on evidence. And the reaction of the proponents has done the exact opposite. It's persuaded me that this is all a bunch of virtue signaling mixed with government power-grabs. Congratulations GDPR fans--you succeeded in driving away a potentially-persuadable convert. Good jorb!
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
processing of genetic data: this one's more reasonable. But applies to a tiny fraction of anyone out there.
biometric data for the purposes of identifying a natural person: ok, we can agree on this one. But also, only a tiny fraction...for the moment. "Only a tiny fraction" is a very weak argument when talking about relatively new technology in a world where the S curve reigns supreme.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
processing of genetic data: this one's more reasonable. But applies to a tiny fraction of anyone out there.
biometric data for the purposes of identifying a natural person: ok, we can agree on this one. But also, only a tiny fraction...for the moment. "Only a tiny fraction" is a very weak argument when talking about relatively new technology in a world where the S curve reigns supreme.
Honestly, I don't believe that most companies want to know that sort of stuff. Because it's completely useless for their business purposes. And the ones that do want it either have access via contract (places like genetic ancestry companies or security token providers) or already have it (healthcare providers and insurers)
Government (which, I will note, is exempt from these regulations in the main), on the other hand, has both the motive and historical pattern of wanting to know that sort of thing for invidious purposes. And when the government is also the health-care provider, they have the means and opportunity as well. Businesses mostly want to sell you stuff. Governments often want to rule your life. And it's governments who have the nasty habit of putting people they don't like in camps or killing them in job lots. Not companies (except in the rare circumstances where the company was acting as the government as well, cf frontier company towns, and even then their repressive behaviors were targeted at keeping the goods flowing, not at "you're a bad person so we're going to send you off to die").
-
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
So all your non-US customers would have to pay US tax on your goods and services, because you would be breaking the US law if you treated them as US customers and didn't collect said tax?
You might have to if it was a federal excise tax (I've never been involved in a retail operation and there aren't many things you'd buy online that have excise taxes that I'm aware of). Sales taxes are levied by the states and typically aren't charged to people from a state where the business doesn't have a physical presence, though as you can probably imagine some states have been fighting this for a while.
-
@boomzilla I'm pretty sure there was just a
law passedcourt case making online businesses collect and remit sales taxes based on customer's location.Fake edit:
Important Tax Cases: Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and the Physical Presence Rule for Sales Tax Collection
In the Complete Auto Transit case, the Supreme Court articulated a four-part test to determine if a state taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and...
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Honestly, I don't believe that most companies want to know that sort of stuff. Because it's completely useless for their business purposes.
Until they find a way to monetize it somehow, to better target customers or offer "personalized experiences" (i.e. find out who they can charge more).
And they will, sooner or later. Because there are have been plenty of examples proving that marketing people have no concept of ethics and would sell their own parents to make a quick buck.
And the data they've collected on you will leak, because they give absolutely zero fucks about security. It will then be available to anybody for blackmail or other purposes.
If your reaction to this is "meh, my while life is on Twitter/Facebook already" and "the government does worse", then good for you. I hope you won't have to regret that later. I and other people violently disagree, though.
-
@Zerosquare said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Honestly, I don't believe that most companies want to know that sort of stuff. Because it's completely useless for their business purposes.
Until they find a way to monetize it somehow, to better target customers or offer "personalized experiences" (i.e. find out who they can charge more).
And they will, sooner or later. Because there are have been plenty of examples proving that marketing people have no concept of ethics and would sell their own parents to make a quick buck.
And the data they've collected on you will leak, because they give absolutely zero fucks about security. It will then be available to anybody for blackmail or other purposes.
If your reaction to this is "meh, my while life is on Twitter/Facebook already" and "the government does worse", then good for you. I hope you won't have to regret that later. I and other people violently disagree, though.
But how are they going to get that genetic or biometric data in the first place? Because I sure as heck haven't shared it with them, and it's the sort of thing that can't really just be aggregated from a bunch of different sources (like much of the other data can).
Also, this goes back to harms done. If this is such a big deal, certainly there would be actual cases of harm done by these rapacious folks. All the ones I've been able to get have to do with things that are already illegal for other, non-privacy reasons. Which tells me that this whole thing is more about public signalling of virtues ("look at what I care about!") than anything else. Or that people are just crappy at actually supporting their arguments. Or both.
I'm a pretty private person (even on Facebook). I don't go sharing a bunch of things like many people I see, I don't take stupid Facebook quizzes, etc. My Amazon browsing history shows I like D&D and fantasy books. Wow. And even with all that data from things I buy, their recommendations and "targeted ads" still suck horribly. So far, they haven't shown me that they're actually trying to do this.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Let’s turn this around, is there anything you do consider private?
Credit card numbers, social security numbers? All your arguments apply to those as well. Why are there laws that prevent arbitrarily sharing those.Might also argue for just storing plaintext passwords everywhere, because all the potential harm done is already illegal.
Also, I find your statements as unconvincing as you do in reverse. Sure, people post something like “I’ve just been at the gym”, like they’d tell their friends, but they also don’t expect their friends to write everything down in a 200 page notebook and conclude intimate details you haven’t posted from data mining and cross analysis.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
But how are they going to get that genetic or biometric data in the first place?
- Before reCAPTCHA existed, the idea you could massively get people to do your OCR and image classification for free seemed crazy.
- Before social networks existed, the idea that you could massively get people to disclose a good chunk of their life for free seemed crazy.
- Before those "discover your heritage" services existed, the idea that you could massively get people to give your their DNA and pay for it seemed crazy.
Give it a little time.
"Just don't use those services!"
Good luck. It will only get harder and harder to avoid not only them, but also other services which rely on them. Just like it's hard to get away from Google and Facebook nowadays.
"Even if they collect data, misusing it is illegal, so you're safe!"
It's not uncommon for big companies to break the law if they think they can keep it secret, get away with it and/or if it generates more profit than the fine you they have to pay if they get caught (the Uber thread is a good example). Sure, you can sue them after the fact... if you have lots of time and lots of money to spend against an entity which has plenty of lawyers working for them. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes.
And laws can change. The data which you cannot legally use today may be worth a lot of money tomorrow.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I guarantee you that the EU won't impose fines just because a single EU citizen residing in the EU managed to get a US bank account and phone number and thereby bypassed your restrictions intentionally.
@Steve_The_Cynic, as someone living in a country whose data protection authority recently announced that the stipulations of the GDPR apply even if an EU citizen residing in the EU uses a VPN to evade IP blocks and consume an e-service, care to comment?
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
No. How would they? The FBI has no jurisdiction in foreign countries.
I'm going to assume you and @Luhmann mean ICE, since that's the American law enforcement component that seizes stuff based on copyright violations and so on. And the answer is... it doesn't. It gets other countries' law enforcement to "do us a favor and nuke that from orbit, plz". Which by and large they do, regardless of local legality or the existence of any agreements. And because of how the Internet is structured it's almost always possible to get at one component or another (site / server / hosting company / domain registrar / ISP's DNS)
@Zerosquare said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Importing and exporting lawfully acquired works outside of their intended region isn't illegal.
Which is why there are technical measures that are supposed to render such gray-market goods unusable, and laws that make bypassing those measures illegal. The entertainment industry perceived the First Sale Doctrine and arbitrage as damage and routed around them.
@levicki said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
And if your server was in, say, Oregon, then no US citizen would have to pay sales tax because sales tax rate in Oregon is 0%?
The reach of state laws end at the edge of the state. Oregonians would be charged their 0% sales tax rate. Non-Oregonians would not be charged tax at all. Instead, they pay use tax in their home state as part of their annual tax return to replace the sales tax the state would have received.
... is what I would say until 2005, when some states did a thing.
@Rhywden said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
We're talking about providing services here, not merely being online. Stop
Most of the things discussed here have been e-commerce services. But information services -- even having a comments section or contact form, and even if you outsource that comments section to some shithole like Disqus -- count as providing services.
-
@TwelveBaud said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
I guarantee you that the EU won't impose fines just because a single EU citizen residing in the EU managed to get a US bank account and phone number and thereby bypassed your restrictions intentionally.
@Steve_The_Cynic, as someone living in a country whose data protection authority recently announced that the stipulations of the GDPR apply even if an EU citizen residing in the EU uses a VPN to evade IP blocks and consume an e-service, care to comment?
Mostly just that I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. The statement is probably correct from a pedantically legalistic point of view, but the practicalities suggest that it would be impossible to enforce at that level.
If the hypothecated citizen (and yes, I am, since 19 August 2019(1), an EU citizen living in that EU country(2)) gives false address information, and the e-service doesn't involve the citizen (directly) paying money to the service provider, it's really hard for anyone to know that the citizen is in and of the EU. It might lead to such service providers applying a policy that, since this and this and this IP address/range is a VPN terminus (e.g. it's one of Giganews's VyprVPN(3) exit nodes), it must assume that it's an EUian (rather than a Brazilian or Egyptian, say) and apply the RGPD(4) regardless, in case of trouble.
(1) That's the date the official decision was made. The alternative candidate date is the 20th, when it was published in the Journal Officiel. I didn't find out until the préfecture called me on 12 September.
(2) The residence part is probably more important, maybe.
(3) I pay a subscription to Giganews so that VyprVPN is available to use immediately if I want to use a VPN. The Usenet access they also provide is neither here nor there.
(4) Réglement général sur la protection des données or something like that. The GDPR.
-
-
@TwelveBaud said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Most of the things discussed here have been e-commerce services. But information services -- even having a comments section or contact form, and even if you outsource that comments section to some shithole like Disqus -- count as providing services.
The real problem has been the proliferation of services (including those wrapped up and sold as components, such as your Disqus case) that haven't put thought into how to handle deleting data properly at user request, and which have defaulted into collecting far more personal information than was really justified by the service they provided. The services in question tried for a long time to avoid any sort of regulation being applied to them, with the result that when regulation finally did arrive, it was more draconian than they would have liked by far.
Some services are partially exempt from the "delete everything at user request" principle. The classic one is billing: nobody has the right to use the GDPR to demand forgetting of a debt or the personal info necessary for collecting on that debt (for as long as the debt is outstanding anyway).
-
@dkf The real problem was the invention out of thin air of a "right to be forgotten." That's not a real thing, nor should it be, as it gives bad actors the right to force others to delete real, factual information about past misdeeds, which has been the primary use case for it ever since it was invented. "Deleting data at user request" needs to DIAF.
-
@Mason_Wheeler It isn't an absolute right, but rather a qualified right. This is quite different to, say, the rights enumerated in the First Amendment.
-
@dkf I wonder if he has some actual data of bad actors actually profitting from this rule - as in: Actually reoffending, in contrast to merely being able to finally get on with their lives.
I dare say that it's more on the side of hypothetical hand-wringing.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
as it gives bad actors the right to force others to delete real, factual information about past misdeeds
Freedom of speech/press is not affected by the GDPR. I don't know why you think it is, but it definitely isn't.
You have no right to prevent anyone from sharing your data if there is legitimate public interest in said data. And regulations for the financial sector and similar regulations that require keeping records still apply, so you cannot use GDPR to cover your tracks.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Freedom of speech/press is not affected by the GDPR. I don't know why you think it is, but it definitely isn't.
Maybe because it totally is? Because of people who use the RTBF to take down information about them, and then also take down future news articles talking about them using the RTBF to memory-hole their past and actually being successful about it. (I would say to look up Thomas Goolnik if you don't think this actually happens, except you're likely to not even find him because he uses the RTBF to get articles about his abuse of the RTBF delisted from search engines.) That's about as infringing on freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it gets!
-
@Mason_Wheeler Took me 5 seconds, first result on my default search engine:
Sounds like the big question here is whether a scam from a decade ago is still newsworthy enough to be worth mentioning the name of the perpetrator after a decade?
Edit: It is also not clear to me whether Google might be overreacting here by approving too many requests.
-
@dfdub Is Bernie Madoff still worth mentioning?
-
@Mason_Wheeler
There seems to be a slight difference there, regarding the scale of the crime and whether the perpetrator was convicted in a court of law and served time.And before we start a philosophical discussion on where to draw the line and what the statute of limitations for newsworthiness of different crimes is (alleged ones, disputes that were settled and actual convictions): Are you absolutely sure the main story isn't just Google overreacting? Does this guy actually have a legal standing? That seems at the very least questionable, and the Wikipedia article only makes a vague allegation to a UK authority's legal opinion, without providing any source or giving any details.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Are you absolutely sure the main story isn't just Google overreacting? Does this guy actually have a legal standing?
Yes, it's called "Universal Jurisdiction," and Google in particular has to worry about it, giving the way the EU is just looking for any excuse to smack them (and Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook) around for daring to be successful where they have been an abject failure in producing anything comparable.
Given the political realities, that's all the standing people like Goolnik need.
-
@Mason_Wheeler
Now you're just ranting and repeating your personal opinions instead of actually answering my question.I doubt this guy would win a court case over this matter. You could potentially change my mind by proving that he actually has legal standing, and then I might be willing to admit that the "right to be forgotten" may be questionable in this case and be willing to discuss where the line should be drawn. But instead you just repeat talking points.
From where I'm standing, it looks like the actual problem is Google's de facto monopoly on finding information online and their unwillingness to defend themselves against legal challenges. Not the EU bullying Google.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Are you absolutely sure the main story isn't just Google overreacting? Does this guy actually have a legal standing?
Yes, it's called "Universal Jurisdiction," and Google in particular has to worry about it, giving the way the EU is just looking for any excuse to smack them (and Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook) around for daring to be successful where they have been an abject failure in producing anything comparable.
Yes, Blakey, we've heard you loud and clear.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
From where I'm standing, it looks like the actual problem is Google's de facto monopoly on finding information online and their unwillingness to defend themselves against legal challenges. Not the EU bullying Google.
Considering the countless reports of YouTube (i.e. Google) also taking down videos of alleged copyright infringement that either don't even remotely contain the claimed material or where the poster has the actual copyright to it, that sounds quite plausible.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
it's called "Universal Jurisdiction,"
Have you come around yet to answering why it's fine when the US does that?
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Now you're just ranting and repeating your personal opinions
If it's just a personal opinion and not a fact, then where's the evidence to the contrary?
Where is the European Google? Where's the European Facebook? Or Amazon, or Microsoft? I'm honestly trying hard here, and I can't think of a single European tech company that's a household name in the USA. Manufacturing, sure, particularly in the auto space. But when it comes to software... the closest thing I can think of -- and this is really roundabout -- is CERN, because that's where Tim Berners-Lee was working when he invented HTML. (Based off of IBM's SGML and Apple's HyperCard technology. And it only ever got big because of Mosaic and Netscape. So... yeah.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
If it's just a personal opinion and not a fact, then where's the evidence to the contrary?
Where is the European Google?How's that relevant?
That's not the part that was claimed personal opinion.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Where is the European Google? Where's the European Facebook?
Are we playing dodgeball with topics now or are you actually interested in a discussion? Every time I ask you to elaborate, I just get tabloid talking points about something vaguely related.
-
@dfdub That is the point. Europe has been trying to extract money from American tech companies for years now because they can't make it themselves. Just look at the "link tax". You can't honestly say that wasn't aimed directly, specifically at Google News, for the specific purpose of transferring money from Google to European publishers who failed at monetizing their sites on their own.
Google understands this, and they do have European subsidiaries, so it's a whole lot harder for them to do the right thing and tell Europe where they can stick their Universal Jurisdiction. Therefore, they have little choice but to bend over when thugs like Goolnik come around abusing the RTBF.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
Just look at the "link tax".
That is a completely different topic and you are highly unlikely to find a single European on this forum who supports that shit. Nobody except the shareholders of some newspapers thinks it's a good idea.
But that has fuck all to do with GDPR and even less with the "right to be forgotten". You just change topics every time you run out of talking points or are presented with counterarguments.
-
@dfdub said in The Official GDPR Lawsuit thread:
That is a completely different topic
No, it's really not. Neither is the EU Copyright Directive. They're all different sides of the same coin, and if you can't even see that much then I don't think it's possible to continue this conversation with you.
Thomas Goolnik - Wikipedia
