3 ms·

> even if the claimant has no use for a lot of the information they are requesting. It's not about wether the information is useful or not, it's about seeing w

by wlll 8y ago

> even if the claimant has no use for a lot of the information they are requesting. It's not about wether the information is useful or not, it's about seeing what a company has. If I get some unsolicited comms from a company then I'm going to want to get information about all the data they hold on me, preferably including where they got it from and where they sent it to.

jacquesm 8y ago
Then you ask that without resorting to threats of reporting someone to the regulators unless that is your whole goal. Keep in mind that the writer of the letter claims he/she is a 'customer of the company', so a friendly relationship, not a hostile one like the one that you are describing. Those are totally different situations and different strategies apply.
- wlll 8y ago
  The only thing that could be called a "threat" that I saw (and I may have missed some instances) was: > I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate reply to my request within one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the <appropriate data protection authority>. and I don't really see that as a threat, more of a "directing of the proceedings". I mean, it's fact. If some company doesn't respond in the way I think they should to then that's exactly what I will be doing. This isn't a love letter, I don't see any harm in stating fact about this. I can totally see how it could be taken either way though. I also agree the letter is going after everything, and everything is going to be painful for companies, but for me personally the pain is going to be a byproduct of wanting to know everything. To be clear, companies that have made efforts to comply with GDPR that I've directly engaged with I'm not interested in and am going to leave alone, but the next unsolicited email from a recruiter I get will start a cascade of access then deletion requests up to the point where my information entered the system, painful or not.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    If you have a relationship with a company that is otherwise in good standing this is a fishing expedition based on false concern, and clearly a trolling attempt. If you have an actual reason based on some evidence that something is not ok then yes, by all means go for it. But if that's not the case all this letter does is to try to get the company to waste time and resources on it, effectively devaluating the GDPR.
- michaelt 8y ago
  A person can be a customer without being in a friendly relationship. Just look at Americans posting online about Comcast.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    In fact, this is how I feel generally about most or all engagements I have with large companies. Privacy policies, opt-in for any protections which have aggressively anti-consumer defaults, blosted irrelevant Javascript executing on their webpages, unfriendly customer service, bureaucracy any time I need help. Since this is all standard, I would generally believe a serious-toned legalese template letter that referenced real possible consequences for non-compliance would be a no-brainer first place to start.

by wlll 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Then you ask that without resorting to threats of reporting someone to the regulators unless that is your whole goal. Keep in mind that the writer of the letter claims he/she is a 'customer of the company', so a friendly relationship, not a hostile one like the one that you are describing. Those are totally different situations and different strategies apply.

wlll 8y ago
The only thing that could be called a "threat" that I saw (and I may have missed some instances) was: > I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate reply to my request within one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the <appropriate data protection authority>. and I don't really see that as a threat, more of a "directing of the proceedings". I mean, it's fact. If some company doesn't respond in the way I think they should to then that's exactly what I will be doing. This isn't a love letter, I don't see any harm in stating fact about this. I can totally see how it could be taken either way though. I also agree the letter is going after everything, and everything is going to be painful for companies, but for me personally the pain is going to be a byproduct of wanting to know everything. To be clear, companies that have made efforts to comply with GDPR that I've directly engaged with I'm not interested in and am going to leave alone, but the next unsolicited email from a recruiter I get will start a cascade of access then deletion requests up to the point where my information entered the system, painful or not.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  If you have a relationship with a company that is otherwise in good standing this is a fishing expedition based on false concern, and clearly a trolling attempt. If you have an actual reason based on some evidence that something is not ok then yes, by all means go for it. But if that's not the case all this letter does is to try to get the company to waste time and resources on it, effectively devaluating the GDPR.
michaelt 8y ago
A person can be a customer without being in a friendly relationship. Just look at Americans posting online about Comcast.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  In fact, this is how I feel generally about most or all engagements I have with large companies. Privacy policies, opt-in for any protections which have aggressively anti-consumer defaults, blosted irrelevant Javascript executing on their webpages, unfriendly customer service, bureaucracy any time I need help. Since this is all standard, I would generally believe a serious-toned legalese template letter that referenced real possible consequences for non-compliance would be a no-brainer first place to start.