4 ms·

> Does this meet the requirements for a site to avoid notifying users under the GDPR? I have no idea. Not necessarily. It's a bit complex, but the fact that Fa

> Does this meet the requirements for a site to avoid notifying users under the GDPR? I have no idea. Not necessarily. It's a bit complex, but the fact that Fathom ingests personal data at all likely means that they must still be disclosed by whoever is using Fathom's code. On the other hand, if Fathom were able to push data ingestion into the first party's infrastructure so that only aggregated data hits Fathom's own infrastructure, I'm pretty sure that would put Fathom in the clear due to the fact that they are no longer processing or storing personal data. To Fathom's credit, I am a big fan regardless of the steps they seem to be taking with anonymization, and I will consider using them instead of GA for future projects.

JackWritesCode 7y ago
What do you think about Recital 26? For GDPR, our stance can be found here: https://usefathom.com/data/ https://usefathom.com/data/
- munchbunny 7y ago
  I am neither a lawyer nor a DPO, I just worked on GDPR compliance in the past, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I went and reread parts of GDPR, and I think you are right, though not because of Article 26. I think it's pretty clear that after your ingestion the data has been in good faith anonymized to the degree that it is no longer personal, and therefore your analytics code should be exempt from consent rules. The interesting question to me is whether a controller deciding to put your pixel on a page for analytics purposes counts as you processing on the controller's behalf to an extent requiring consent. I don't see any clause specifically regarding third party access to personal data (as opposed to third parties processing personal data), so I agree with your stance that it's most likely fine.
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  (obligatory IANAL) Recitals aren't legally binding in and of themselves, so I'd be wary of _relying_ on them _completely_. That said, the articles of a regulation should be read in light of the recitals (as the latter are the rationale behind the actual binding legislation).
  - JackWritesCode 7y ago
    Trust me, we're not relying on Recital 26, that is just my thought experiment :) See here for our GDPR compliance: https://usefathom.com/data/ https://usefathom.com/data/

JackWritesCode 7y ago

What do you think about Recital 26? For GDPR, our stance can be found here: https://usefathom.com/data/ https://usefathom.com/data/

munchbunny 7y ago
I am neither a lawyer nor a DPO, I just worked on GDPR compliance in the past, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I went and reread parts of GDPR, and I think you are right, though not because of Article 26. I think it's pretty clear that after your ingestion the data has been in good faith anonymized to the degree that it is no longer personal, and therefore your analytics code should be exempt from consent rules. The interesting question to me is whether a controller deciding to put your pixel on a page for analytics purposes counts as you processing on the controller's behalf to an extent requiring consent. I don't see any clause specifically regarding third party access to personal data (as opposed to third parties processing personal data), so I agree with your stance that it's most likely fine.
M2Ys4U 7y ago
(obligatory IANAL) Recitals aren't legally binding in and of themselves, so I'd be wary of _relying_ on them _completely_. That said, the articles of a regulation should be read in light of the recitals (as the latter are the rationale behind the actual binding legislation).
- JackWritesCode 7y ago
  Trust me, we're not relying on Recital 26, that is just my thought experiment :) See here for our GDPR compliance: https://usefathom.com/data/ https://usefathom.com/data/