3 ms·
well, I'm cagey with "unnecessary" because I honestly think it's going to take a good few cases in front of judges until we properly understand where that lays.
by soneil 8y ago
well, I'm cagey with "unnecessary" because I honestly think it's going to take a good few cases in front of judges until we properly understand where that lays. Which will be fun.
I'm also curious where other points will land in reality. eg, if I ask Apple to remove all data they have about me, will that also remove me from your address book? If I ask Google to remove all data they have about me, will that also remove any emails you've received from me?
In this light, I'm happy to see the first complaints arrive against Google and Facebook, as they're exactly the examples we all have in mind, and we need to see how they'll play out in reality.
(Albeit, I also trust the European legal systems won't commonly wield the maximum possible fines, but rather seek compliance. The scary big numbers, the source of so much FUD, should be reserved for wilful disregard after this step. "Walk softly but carry a big stick" style.
- alfredallan1 8y agoYes, indeed. It will take a few cases to see what reality is. Though I am equally sure companies which make billions off personal data will leave no stone unturned to argue that their use case is legit. Their case will be helped by the fact that they can simply have the user “consent” to stuff. And since none of those are “critical” services, they will find ways to prove that user consent was actually voluntary, and not coerced. So I think you’re right that only the most egregious violations will have real trouble. The judges might also want to demonstrate to everybody (including their own system) that the big stick can in fact be wielded to real effect. If people start beliving that the stick is really just a prop, no point carrying it, is there…