3 ms·

It's a warning. The site is authored by a private entity whose only qualification may be that they registered the gdpr.eu domain most quickly. It claims to be

by _rpd 8y ago

It's a warning. The site is authored by a private entity whose only qualification may be that they registered the gdpr.eu domain most quickly. It claims to be a "complete guide to GDPR compliance" but is nothing of the sort. Most pages end with the disclaimer that "nothing found in this portal constitutes legal advice" and to consult a lawyer. Legally, it's quite dangerous since it might give you the feeling of being compliant while still being at risk. "But Proton Technologies AG said ..." isn't going to hold up in court.

dpwm 8y ago
> Legally, it's quite dangerous since it might give you the feeling of being compliant while still being at risk. If you're soliciting free advice online – even from a law firm – it may as well contain such a disclaimer. Nearly always the terms of service do contain such a term. > "But Proton Technologies AG said ..." isn't going to hold up in court. "But our law firm said…" seems to be the alternative here. I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court. I'm all for getting legal advice from professionals. That said, there's a lot of law firms that will give you advice on the GDPR without really knowing what they're talking about. Their risk is pretty minimal – as a business client you're unlikely to be entitled to the same redress as consumers. The bar is very high for demonstrating negligence.
- IanCal 8y ago
  I think the point here may be that it could be different if this was an official EU page. I think the justification of "But we followed your guidance" is a pretty reasonable one in a court (I'm not a lawyer though).
- xg15 8y ago
  I think it's not paid vs unpaid but official vs private. I found the warning very useful, as I assumed this was a publication from an EU institution as well. If this had been the case, you could have assumed that the page had been produced with the primary goal of informing the public and clearing up confusion - and that the page were likely to have input from people close to who actually drafted the regulation. All that would put my trust in the accuracy of the information way higher than that in a random law firm, no matter how much legal weight that would have in either case. Additionally, it would be some news if an EU body published an "official" guide how to implement the GDPR, whereas there are likely many such guides by private advisors.
  - dpwm 8y ago
    On deeper inspection it seems the whole thing is a bit of a plug for Proton Mail. For some reason my disengaged brain hadn't linked Proton Technologies AG with ProtonMail, which was plugged frequently enough for me to notice on first glance but not quite enough to make me suspicious.

by _rpd 8y ago

dpwm 8y ago

> Legally, it's quite dangerous since it might give you the feeling of being compliant while still being at risk. If you're soliciting free advice online – even from a law firm – it may as well contain such a disclaimer. Nearly always the terms of service do contain such a term. > "But Proton Technologies AG said ..." isn't going to hold up in court. "But our law firm said…" seems to be the alternative here. I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court. I'm all for getting legal advice from professionals. That said, there's a lot of law firms that will give you advice on the GDPR without really knowing what they're talking about. Their risk is pretty minimal – as a business client you're unlikely to be entitled to the same redress as consumers. The bar is very high for demonstrating negligence.

IanCal 8y ago
I think the point here may be that it could be different if this was an official EU page. I think the justification of "But we followed your guidance" is a pretty reasonable one in a court (I'm not a lawyer though).
xg15 8y ago
I think it's not paid vs unpaid but official vs private. I found the warning very useful, as I assumed this was a publication from an EU institution as well. If this had been the case, you could have assumed that the page had been produced with the primary goal of informing the public and clearing up confusion - and that the page were likely to have input from people close to who actually drafted the regulation. All that would put my trust in the accuracy of the information way higher than that in a random law firm, no matter how much legal weight that would have in either case. Additionally, it would be some news if an EU body published an "official" guide how to implement the GDPR, whereas there are likely many such guides by private advisors.
- dpwm 8y ago
  On deeper inspection it seems the whole thing is a bit of a plug for Proton Mail. For some reason my disengaged brain hadn't linked Proton Technologies AG with ProtonMail, which was plugged frequently enough for me to notice on first glance but not quite enough to make me suspicious.