3 ms·
> Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. And what websites have
by josefx 7y ago
> Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with.
And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.
- logicprog 7y agoForcing companies to tell users what they're doing with their data so the users can have informed choice isn't really my issue here. The issue I have is the rules in what can be done with that data. Because those rules make it so that the users don't get to decide what they're OK with being done with their data. If I'm being really honest here, the GDPR seemed pretty well intentioned, IMHO it just went a little far.
- cstrasen 7y agoMaybe I read a different text than you but I have yet to encounter a scenario in which a user would consent to processing that the law still would not allow. Assuming the consent was gathered according to the basic principles of GDPR, fair, transparent, specific etc. Maybe I am missing something. Would you provide examples? I would be very glad to learn if there are edge cases I may be overlooking.