6 ms·

> The point is that users should be in control of their data, and when they give it to someone they have the right to know what it is used for and to be able to

• toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Data about me is my data, and if the government gives me the right to control it, I have that right. If I share a photo, it’s still my photo, I still own the copyright to it, and as an American I’ve used the DMCA to revoke access to photos when tech companies wouldn’t remove my photo when asked politely. The rest of my data is no different. I own my data and the data about me, not them. GDPR gives users the controls and governance over their data that should have always existed, but that tech companies gaslighted users into believing doesn’t exist.
  • kaseyb002 9y ago
    GDPR takes away the right to trade your data in exchange for services.
    • s73v3r_ 9y ago
      It absolutely does not. That is still entirely legal. All the GDPR does is make sure that the entity you're trading with is up front about what data they are collecting, and what it will be used for, giving you the ability to make an informed decision.
      • CryptoPunk 9y ago
        That's not all it does. Among the other things it does: It requires the entity to give you the ability to delete your personal data, which means a contract where you grant a service a permanent and irrevocable right to data about you in exchange for a service is illegal. It also requires the entity to provide an equivalent service to any site visitor that chooses to not grant their data to the entity, thus making the business model of trading even revocable access to one's data for a service unviable in the long run. It makes it illegal to offer a service in exchange for data that is stored without end-user retrievability. Therefore, it makes a contract where you grant a service irretrievable data about you in exchange for a service is illegal. All of these reduce the range of possible voluntary interactions. It's anti consent.
        • s73v3r_ 9y ago
          No, they do not. Not a single one of those reduces the range of voluntary interactions. If anything, they increase the range, because now it actually is voluntary. And it is bonkers to imply that something that requires you to actually get affirmative consent from the user is "anti consent". You know what's really anti consent? 10 page TOS listings written in 10pt font that hide what's actually being done with data deep inside.
          • CryptoPunk 9y ago
            I just gave you examples of voluntary interactions that are now illegal under the GDPR programme, and you respond that none of the examples reduce the range of voluntary interactions. It's bizarre. >>You know what's really anti consent? 10 page TOS listings written in 10pt font that hide what's actually being done with data deep inside. I agree that it is anti-consent. I don't have a problem with laws requiring more legible consent forms. My problem is the many limitations on the range of voluntary interactions that two parties can enter into that are found in the GDPR, a few of which I listed, and which you totally ignored.
            • s73v3r_ 9y ago
  • jimktrains2 9y ago
    > Data about me is my data I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. > If I share a photo, it’s still my photo, I still own the copyright to it, and as an American I’ve used the DMCA to revoke access to photos when tech companies wouldn’t remove my photo when asked politely. I didn't say you don't own the photo, I said you don't have control over it. Those are two very different things. > The rest of my data is no different. Exactly, you have no control over it. > I own my data and the data about me, not them. No, you don't _own_ your data. > GDPR gives users the controls and governance over their data that should have always existed No, on all accounts. There is no reason at all that you need to delete accounts or force anyone to delete any information about you. That's all just silly. > but that tech companies gaslighted users into believing doesn’t exist That's also silly. If you don't control something, you don't control it. Full stop. I don't understand why you don't understand that.
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). Save your apologies, regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection. Looking forward to more of if it the same fashion.
      • jimktrains2 9y ago
        > I don’t “understand” it because it’s not true (controls need not be technical; they can be regulatory, policy, or other methods). No, control is only one thing: the ability to constrain the actions of another. You can _never_ prevent your ex from sharing nudes of you; you can only recover damages. > Save your apologies I'm not appologizing for anyone. > regulation is coming to fix the deficiencies in data rights and protection No, regulations are coming to give users a false sense of empowerment at the cost of everyone else.
        • 794CD01 9y ago
          I agree with you in principle but your argument has veered into unsound territory. Do you not believe it's possible for the threat of damages to end up preventing an ex from sharing nudes of you that they otherwise might have? Sure, there's a level of determination that will surpass that barrier, but at least there's a barrier.
  • ythn 9y ago
    > Data about me is my data, and if the government gives me the right to control it, I have that right. So if I investigate you, take your picture, etc. have I stolen from you?
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      You own that photo, not me. You get to control how it’s used unless government regulates otherwise (based on US law, the EU might be different).
    • dahauns 9y ago
      Not stolen, but quite probably violated several laws in connection with privacy and personality rights. And this is already the case in many EU countries, no GDPR needed for that. I actually hadn't considered it before, but I imagine that being a PI in e.g. Germany must be a veritable legal minefield.
      • thomasz 9y ago
        It is.
  • goatforce5 9y ago
    > If I share a photo, it’s still my photo This is where it becomes murky for me. If you send me that photo via email, should you subsequently be able to revoke my access to that photo. If so, by what means? If you used a closed messaging system (say Facebook's messaging system, or Apple's Messages), should you be able to revoke access? If you follow the argument a hop, skip and a jump away, what happens if I submit a photo to a publication and they run it on their website? Can I revoke access? What if that publication has published that photo in a physical form? ie, where is the line where a reasonable person should expect that the data they have willingly shared/published has slipped beyond their control?
    • toomuchtodo 9y ago
      If you give someone a license to reproduce a digital asset, you lose the ability to revoke access to it. All other rights are reserved. Would it change the dynamic to be able to revoke access to assets in a private messaging system? For sure. But copyright law (at least in the US) supports this right of the copyright owner. The inability to revoke access is a failing of the tool or the product, not the law.
      • goatforce5 9y ago
        Isn't it pretty standard for website T&Cs to say something along the lines of "by uploading content to this website you are providing [website owner] with a license to reproduce the content"? Sometimes those T&Cs will be quite broad - non-revokable, across all media (including forms not yet imagined). > The inability to revoke access is a failing of the tool or the product, not the law. Does the law need to change? Or (in the case of email) is it fine as is because the reasonable person realizes that once you hit 'send', the content is out of your control?
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
  • zip1234 9y ago
    If I meet you and write down a note about you afterwards, is that your data? I would argue that no, it is my data even though it is about you.
    • thomasz 9y ago
      It depends on the note. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_inform...
    • Aengeuad 9y ago
      It's not their data explicitly but that doesn't mean you can do what you want with it or that companies have no obligation to them just because it's your note. They may not be able to request access to view that note or take advantage of the many GDPR provisions, but if the note contains personally identifiable information about them and said note is leaked to the public then companies will still need to remove that information at their request despite it being your note. This is similar to some other laws, you can be as slanderous as you want to someone in private but if that slander makes publication then you open yourself up to a lawsuit. You may own copyrights to the image you take of someone in public, but you cannot use their image in your merchandise despite owning the copyright to that image. If someone is doxed in an email, and the email hosting provider used is compromised and has their emails linked to the public, the person who was doxed has just as much right to request that the publicly available emails be removed from search engines, etc.
• worble 9y ago
  >I also disagree with this. The GDPR doesn't do anything to make companies handle my data more carefully or responsibly. Please actually the read the GDPR before commenting on it. Specifically read this for guidance on how companies should be handling data: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/ and its suitable recital: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-78/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-78/
• Silhouette 9y ago
  See, I disagree with this very premise. Why is it true? It's _not_ my data; it's data about me. Why do we protect any rights by law? Usually it's because some harm is likely if the right is not protected and the potential victim cannot effectively protect themselves due to some imbalance of power. Reasonable people can debate how far privacy rights should be protected and where the balance lies between protecting the data subject and allowing data processors to do useful things. Maybe the GDPR doesn't strike the ideal balance here and favours one side too much at the expense of the other. However, it makes no more sense to argue that someone can't have any legal control over how personal data concerning them is processed than to argue that, for example, someone can't have any legal control over whether their physical property remains in their possession. Many social conventions have proven to be useful, and we codify them in laws so that everyone can see what is considered acceptable behaviour and so that people who try to undermine those norms for their own benefit at the expense of others can be dealt with.
  • jimktrains2 9y ago
    > However, it makes no more sense to argue that someone can't have any legal control over how personal data concerning them is processed than to argue that, for example, someone can't have any legal control over whether their physical property remains in their possession. No, it's more like making it a crime to break or lose something lent to you. At most it's a civil matter handling damages, not an extension of control over the item lent (baring any contractual agreement).
    • Silhouette 9y ago
      I don't see why the criminal vs. civil distinction matters here. The point is that you can have legal control over something without necessarily having physical control over it. Put another way, how is protection of privacy by restricting what someone may lawfully do with personal data any different to protection of physical property by restricting when someone may lawfully use or remove it? Typically you can't physically stop someone from sending your email address to someone else once they have that information, but then typically you also can't physically stop someone from stealing your TV while you're out once they have a big sledgehammer and access to your front window. I think most of us would still say that we have legal control over our possessions, and most of us would still say that theft is unacceptable behaviour and should be punished. In Europe, where perhaps we tend to have stronger feelings about privacy than in some parts of the world, a lot of people similarly feel that they should have the ability to restrict how data about them is being used and shared, and that some things that some organisations have been doing until now are unacceptable behaviour and should be punished if they continue to do them.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• wsy 9y ago
  Let's talk again in 1-2 years. My prediction is that your premise will be wrong by this time in the EU, i.e., there users will have control over their data. (not perfect control, but that is the same in every area where law is broken, e.g., there are burglars, but still I think you would consider being in control of your personal belongings, and nobody would argue that we should stop prosecuting burglary because many burglars will always get away with it)
  • jimktrains2 9y ago
    I'm always willing to change my opinion based upon data. I'm looking forward to that discussion in a few years. Regardless of who ends up being "right", it will be interesting.
• codedokode 9y ago
  > once shared, are no longer under my control GDPR attempts to fix that.