3 ms·
There's basically nothing in this article, and whatever there is, is confusing. For example: they keep referring to "sensitive data", by which they probably me
by ckastner 8y ago
There's basically nothing in this article, and whatever there is, is confusing.
For example: they keep referring to "sensitive data", by which they probably mean Article 9 data [1], ie: data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, etc.
That's only a subset of GDPR data, and in my personal experience, rather the exception than the norm. The norm doesn't seem to be discussed at all.
The UK's ICO Guide [2] is a much better guide.
[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
[2] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
- richrichardsson 8y agoYep, pretty awful. OP works for them : https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=_Tanya_ https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=_Tanya_
- robin_reala 8y agoThat’s totally fine under HN guidelines.
- ID1452319 8y agoIt reads like the kind of article that was doing the rounds a year ago. The links you've added are very good and I would include the ICO's self-assessment toolkit, which is a useful guide: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/data-protection-self-assessment/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/resources-and-support/d...
- mrweasel 8y agoTheir own "allow tracking" popup is also "illegal", it defaults to allow. I've seen a bunch of similar articles, and it's the lawyer approach to GDPR and data protection in general. They attack the problem from the angle that you want to continue doing what you've always been doing, while staying within the law. What's the same approach sites that just block the EU has opted for, they don't particularly care to reevaluate their usage of their users data.