4 ms·

> Imagine that you're providing a service in exchange for money. Would it be fair for someone to demand money back after they consumed the service? Note I said

> Imagine that you're providing a service in exchange for money. Would it be fair for someone to demand money back after they consumed the service? Note I said delete or anonymise. The point is that the information shouldn't be personally identifiable once the person has asked to be forgotten (within reason of course - you still have to hold as much info as the law mandates whether that person likes it or not). You're welcome to keep the anonymised data and do whatever ML or other analytics with it. > If you do not wish someone to have your data, don't sell it to them. There are plenty of services that gather far more information about you against your will than ordinary folk imagine, IIRC Google and Facebook's tracking of your activity via their ad networks even when you're not visiting pages on their domain. This isn't acceptable, and lots of ordinary people aren't savvy enough to use adblockers or script blockers, yet they never consented to that type of data collection. The GDPR at least gives them some say in what happens to the data that was collected about them.

TomMarius 8y ago
> Note I said delete or anonymise. The point is that the information shouldn't be personally identifiable once the person has asked to be forgotten (within reason of course - you still have to hold as much info as the law mandates whether that person likes it or not). > You're welcome to keep the anonymised data and do whatever ML or other analytics with it. Oh yeah, I saw the or, but one of the major points of collecting data is to better target ads to the person that created these data, and with this, this use case is eliminated. Yes, in some cases, it'd work, but I'm sure that there are many free services that depend on data about the person, not data in general. I agree that people should be informed, but if I build a service that is paid with data, the data should be mine. If I record you on camera while shopping in my shop, I should be free to do whatever I want with that. Given that you've been informed about recording before entering the shop, you had a choice to not use my services. About FB/Google tracking on other sites - I think this should be responsibility of the site owner (ensuring you're informed), but other than that, it's the same - you are providing data to the site owner and the site owner is sending them to others; if you don't like it, you don't have to use their services. We could've spent 10% of what we spent on GDPR on education about tracking and the result (if the goal was to reduce tracking) would be much better. Right now people are tracked more, from my personal experience.
- GenericsMotors 8y ago
  > We could've spent 10% of what we spent on GDPR on education about tracking and the result (if the goal was to reduce tracking) would be much better. How do you know it would be much better? How would you implement this exactly? The GDPR effectively has global reach as it doesn't apply only to EU citizens, and it's easier to implement one compliant system than have a separate one for non-EU data subjects. What sort of timeframe and expenditure are we looking at for worldwide education surrounding tracking on the web and privacy? How do you plan to keep people up-to-date with the latest techniques Ad network deploy to defeat past best-practices? In your example, what sort of recourse would exist for people who are currently privacy-minded, but not savvy enough to know someone's collecting more data than they'd actually have consented to (in your analogy, the equivalent of the Ad network sticking its fingers in people's wallets, taking what they're not entitled to)?

TomMarius 8y ago

> Note I said delete or anonymise. The point is that the information shouldn't be personally identifiable once the person has asked to be forgotten (within reason of course - you still have to hold as much info as the law mandates whether that person likes it or not). > You're welcome to keep the anonymised data and do whatever ML or other analytics with it. Oh yeah, I saw the or, but one of the major points of collecting data is to better target ads to the person that created these data, and with this, this use case is eliminated. Yes, in some cases, it'd work, but I'm sure that there are many free services that depend on data about the person, not data in general. I agree that people should be informed, but if I build a service that is paid with data, the data should be mine. If I record you on camera while shopping in my shop, I should be free to do whatever I want with that. Given that you've been informed about recording before entering the shop, you had a choice to not use my services. About FB/Google tracking on other sites - I think this should be responsibility of the site owner (ensuring you're informed), but other than that, it's the same - you are providing data to the site owner and the site owner is sending them to others; if you don't like it, you don't have to use their services. We could've spent 10% of what we spent on GDPR on education about tracking and the result (if the goal was to reduce tracking) would be much better. Right now people are tracked more, from my personal experience.

GenericsMotors 8y ago
> We could've spent 10% of what we spent on GDPR on education about tracking and the result (if the goal was to reduce tracking) would be much better. How do you know it would be much better? How would you implement this exactly? The GDPR effectively has global reach as it doesn't apply only to EU citizens, and it's easier to implement one compliant system than have a separate one for non-EU data subjects. What sort of timeframe and expenditure are we looking at for worldwide education surrounding tracking on the web and privacy? How do you plan to keep people up-to-date with the latest techniques Ad network deploy to defeat past best-practices? In your example, what sort of recourse would exist for people who are currently privacy-minded, but not savvy enough to know someone's collecting more data than they'd actually have consented to (in your analogy, the equivalent of the Ad network sticking its fingers in people's wallets, taking what they're not entitled to)?