3 ms·

The fact that there's so much confusion suggests that it is not that easy to understand. I've read it and I'm still confused. Without caselaw and a lawyer how

by someguy2018 8y ago

The fact that there's so much confusion suggests that it is not that easy to understand. I've read it and I'm still confused. Without caselaw and a lawyer how am I to determine which data processing are considered "legitimate interest" in Article 6? Recital 47 is supposed to clarify this, but it's still pretty vague and it says legitimate interests may provide a legal basis for processing. May? How do I know if they do or do not?

grabeh 8y ago
Legitimate interests and consent should be the two processing grounds that you rely on as a last resort here. As to your point, legitimate interests requires a balancing act between your interests and others' interests and so is by its nature going to be uncertain. If you are looking to rely on legitimate interests, you should look to document your interests that you think are being served through the processing, and also check to see if any other processing bases may be more suitable to achieve your objective. The aim is to at least have a defensible position behind your use of legitimate interests. Here an example of Facebook listing out their legitimate interests in making use of data: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/legal_bases https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/legal_bases
Silhouette 8y ago
It's disappointing to see comments like the parent being downvoted. Evidently the situation still isn't clear, because if it were then we wouldn't be having GDPR-related discussions on HN almost daily now where people who are currently dealing with these issues professionally have reached very different conclusions and/or received very different advice. I think the biggest problem for many of us is still the uncertainty. For all the mountains of "guidance" now being generated by the EU and the national regulators at five to midnight, there is still very little advice provided that is unambiguous and actionable when it comes to some of the most fundamental questions. What does or doesn't constitute a legitimate interest basis for processing data? When is such an interest is or isn't overridden by the subject's own interests? How long would be considered a reasonable period to retain data for common purposes? Answers like "as short a time as possible, but that might be 20 years" simply aren't useful.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  It's really hard to tell. Between the people who haven't read the GDPR, the people who are trolling, the people who are willfully misrepresenting the GDPR because they politically oppose it, the people who don't understand privacy or nuance, and the people who are trying to interpret the GDPR into an American legal system, there's so much low-quality discussion. Meanwhile, I don't know of any Europeans who don't support it (on an individual level) or who finds it confusing. The hardest part seems to be putting processes in place for the right to erasure, but then we've had similar provisions in EU countries for a while, so it's not a big deal. As for "reasonable period to retain data", unless required by law, you won't get into trouble for deleting data more quickly. So what's the minimum period you absolutely need that data/those logs/those backups for? There's no one-size-fits-all approach, so the law isn't written like that. We just assume most people will be decent/"reasonable" in implementing it, and if not, there's the sanctions. [0[ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Meanwhile, I don't know of any Europeans who don't support it (on an individual level) or who finds it confusing. Hi, I'm a European who doesn't support it and who does find it confusing. To be more precise, while I'm generally in favour of better privacy protections in law, I don't support this poorly implemented attempt, because I think it will have all sorts of unintended consequences that may not be in individuals' best interests, while also imposing a disproportionate burden on controllers and processors who weren't abusing that data for unsavoury purposes anyway, particularly smaller organisations. And maybe "confusing" isn't quite the right word, but in my view it's far too ambiguous in its treatment of some of the most fundamental issues to provide a good platform for future data protection. Much of the official guidance is confusing, often to the point of being misleading and counterproductive, however. we've had similar provisions in EU countries for a while, so it's not a big deal. All regulation is a big deal if you're running a microbusiness and don't have dedicated staff to deal with it. In any case, there are several new or significantly extended rights introduced by the GDPR that certainly weren't there before in my country (the UK). So what's the minimum period you absolutely need that data/those logs/those backups for? Given that things like access history/event logs are important for things like protecting ourselves against potential legal actions, disputed charges and the like, there is no possible way to give an intelligent answer to that. I can, however, state as fact that we have had to rely on detailed log records from several years ago when threatened with actual action by someone who was clearly trying to take advantage of the situation and hadn't expected us to still have evidence that undermined their claims, so any claim that we can just cycle these things out after a few days is demonstrably false. Given that we're not doing anything particularly unusual either legally or in processing data for everyday business purposes, I have to assume we are far from alone in having these experiences and the concerns they raise. There's no one-size-fits-all approach, so the law isn't written like that. While that may be true, it is entirely useless to someone well-intentioned and acting in good faith who is trying to work out what they actually have to do to comply with the new regulations.

grabeh 8y ago

Legitimate interests and consent should be the two processing grounds that you rely on as a last resort here. As to your point, legitimate interests requires a balancing act between your interests and others' interests and so is by its nature going to be uncertain. If you are looking to rely on legitimate interests, you should look to document your interests that you think are being served through the processing, and also check to see if any other processing bases may be more suitable to achieve your objective. The aim is to at least have a defensible position behind your use of legitimate interests. Here an example of Facebook listing out their legitimate interests in making use of data: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/legal_bases https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/legal_bases

Silhouette 8y ago

It's disappointing to see comments like the parent being downvoted. Evidently the situation still isn't clear, because if it were then we wouldn't be having GDPR-related discussions on HN almost daily now where people who are currently dealing with these issues professionally have reached very different conclusions and/or received very different advice. I think the biggest problem for many of us is still the uncertainty. For all the mountains of "guidance" now being generated by the EU and the national regulators at five to midnight, there is still very little advice provided that is unambiguous and actionable when it comes to some of the most fundamental questions. What does or doesn't constitute a legitimate interest basis for processing data? When is such an interest is or isn't overridden by the subject's own interests? How long would be considered a reasonable period to retain data for common purposes? Answers like "as short a time as possible, but that might be 20 years" simply aren't useful.

guitarbill 8y ago
It's really hard to tell. Between the people who haven't read the GDPR, the people who are trolling, the people who are willfully misrepresenting the GDPR because they politically oppose it, the people who don't understand privacy or nuance, and the people who are trying to interpret the GDPR into an American legal system, there's so much low-quality discussion. Meanwhile, I don't know of any Europeans who don't support it (on an individual level) or who finds it confusing. The hardest part seems to be putting processes in place for the right to erasure, but then we've had similar provisions in EU countries for a while, so it's not a big deal. As for "reasonable period to retain data", unless required by law, you won't get into trouble for deleting data more quickly. So what's the minimum period you absolutely need that data/those logs/those backups for? There's no one-size-fits-all approach, so the law isn't written like that. We just assume most people will be decent/"reasonable" in implementing it, and if not, there's the sanctions. [0[ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
- Silhouette 8y ago
  Meanwhile, I don't know of any Europeans who don't support it (on an individual level) or who finds it confusing. Hi, I'm a European who doesn't support it and who does find it confusing. To be more precise, while I'm generally in favour of better privacy protections in law, I don't support this poorly implemented attempt, because I think it will have all sorts of unintended consequences that may not be in individuals' best interests, while also imposing a disproportionate burden on controllers and processors who weren't abusing that data for unsavoury purposes anyway, particularly smaller organisations. And maybe "confusing" isn't quite the right word, but in my view it's far too ambiguous in its treatment of some of the most fundamental issues to provide a good platform for future data protection. Much of the official guidance is confusing, often to the point of being misleading and counterproductive, however. we've had similar provisions in EU countries for a while, so it's not a big deal. All regulation is a big deal if you're running a microbusiness and don't have dedicated staff to deal with it. In any case, there are several new or significantly extended rights introduced by the GDPR that certainly weren't there before in my country (the UK). So what's the minimum period you absolutely need that data/those logs/those backups for? Given that things like access history/event logs are important for things like protecting ourselves against potential legal actions, disputed charges and the like, there is no possible way to give an intelligent answer to that. I can, however, state as fact that we have had to rely on detailed log records from several years ago when threatened with actual action by someone who was clearly trying to take advantage of the situation and hadn't expected us to still have evidence that undermined their claims, so any claim that we can just cycle these things out after a few days is demonstrably false. Given that we're not doing anything particularly unusual either legally or in processing data for everyday business purposes, I have to assume we are far from alone in having these experiences and the concerns they raise. There's no one-size-fits-all approach, so the law isn't written like that. While that may be true, it is entirely useless to someone well-intentioned and acting in good faith who is trying to work out what they actually have to do to comply with the new regulations.