5 ms·

This article is written very strangely. For example > One last bit: Richard Stallman argues that “improving efficiency” of a system must not be a justification

This article is written very strangely. For example > One last bit: Richard Stallman argues that “improving efficiency” of a system must not be a justification for collecting personal data. > Article 5(1) already provides that personal data must be “collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes.” Therefore, it seems that Richard Stallman’s interpretation of this principle means that “improving efficiency” may never be considered legitimate. Do you agree What is the author trying to say here? Its honestly confusing. Is he trying to say that Stallman's point about the law allowing broad collection of data is wrong? Or is he trying to say Stallman is being unreasonable in his demands of the law?

simonh 6y ago
Improving efficiency could mean anything, efficiency of what? It's the thing being made efficient that needs to be evaluated for appropriateness, so I'm with Stallman on this (an infrequent but not unknown occurrence).
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The problem with requirements to be explicit is that they just turn into dense legalese. You say "efficiency of what" thinking they're going to list a specific thing, but then they list every specific thing. Is it software or hardware? No, software and hardware. Is it efficiency in runtime performance or in user interface behavior? Both. Asking animal, vegetable or mineral doesn't actually make it more specific if they can still get to "all of the above" by just listing every option individually.
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's easy. If the justification isn't clear, then the answer is No. It's their responsibility to provide a clear and valid justification.
hugoroy 6y ago
Sorry that it's not clear. Happy to take suggestions for clearer language. Maybe this part should just be removed as it is maybe a bit off topic. I am trying to lay out what principle Richard Stallman is advocating for exactly, when he says that it is never okay to collect data for the purpose of improving efficiency of a system. The principle that RMS is pushing for here, seems to be that only “legitimate” purposes should be allowed. And RMS seems to think that “improving efficiency” is not a legitimate purpose. So, I added this part in the post because in all fairness, if RMS thinks that we should consider that improving a system is an illegitimate purpose, then I think we finally found an actual critique of GDPR that is actually advocating for something not already in the GDPR. But honestly, I think this is just too radical. I think that, provided the right protections are in place, the goal of improving a system has nothing illegitimate per se. I actually prefer to interact with improved systems, and if some personal data may be necessary for that, let's allow it and put the right safeguards. Update: just "Improving a system." without more explanation is not very "explicit" - it should be put in context and more detailed, and information about the explicit purpose must be disclosed to users (see Art 5(1) and 13 of the GDPR).

simonh 6y ago

Improving efficiency could mean anything, efficiency of what? It's the thing being made efficient that needs to be evaluated for appropriateness, so I'm with Stallman on this (an infrequent but not unknown occurrence).

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The problem with requirements to be explicit is that they just turn into dense legalese. You say "efficiency of what" thinking they're going to list a specific thing, but then they list every specific thing. Is it software or hardware? No, software and hardware. Is it efficiency in runtime performance or in user interface behavior? Both. Asking animal, vegetable or mineral doesn't actually make it more specific if they can still get to "all of the above" by just listing every option individually.
- simonh 6y ago
  That's easy. If the justification isn't clear, then the answer is No. It's their responsibility to provide a clear and valid justification.

hugoroy 6y ago

Sorry that it's not clear. Happy to take suggestions for clearer language. Maybe this part should just be removed as it is maybe a bit off topic. I am trying to lay out what principle Richard Stallman is advocating for exactly, when he says that it is never okay to collect data for the purpose of improving efficiency of a system. The principle that RMS is pushing for here, seems to be that only “legitimate” purposes should be allowed. And RMS seems to think that “improving efficiency” is not a legitimate purpose. So, I added this part in the post because in all fairness, if RMS thinks that we should consider that improving a system is an illegitimate purpose, then I think we finally found an actual critique of GDPR that is actually advocating for something not already in the GDPR. But honestly, I think this is just too radical. I think that, provided the right protections are in place, the goal of improving a system has nothing illegitimate per se. I actually prefer to interact with improved systems, and if some personal data may be necessary for that, let's allow it and put the right safeguards. Update: just "Improving a system." without more explanation is not very "explicit" - it should be put in context and more detailed, and information about the explicit purpose must be disclosed to users (see Art 5(1) and 13 of the GDPR).