3 ms·

There might be a new law which requires data on customers in germany to collect your transaction data for 10 years rather than 5 years. They can't apply it retr

There might be a new law which requires data on customers in germany to collect your transaction data for 10 years rather than 5 years. They can't apply it retroactively to data which they already had no right to process (for instance 7 years-old transactions at the time when the law required 5 years), but they can (and have to) apply to a transaction you did 3 years ago (which will now be held for 7 years rather than 2). They might also lessen the amount of data they hold on you, maybe after a review of what they actually needed. I agree they should not send you anything if they store no data whatsoever, but if they do - they should probably inform you about changes in their privacy policies, even if they don't affect you personally.

luckylion 6y ago
> but they can (and have to) apply to a transaction you did 3 years ago (which will now be held for 7 years rather than 2). Are you sure? Laws that compel you to do something usually don't go into effect retroactively. They're like price-hikes in that regard: you can't just unilaterally decide that your customer's monthly subscription fee has doubled since three years ago. In any case, it wouldn't have anything to do with their TOS or privacy policies, and I don't think they'd have to inform you about their compliance with the current laws. > they should probably inform you about changes in their privacy policies, even if they don't affect you personally You're not a customer at that point, why would you be getting information that only concerns customers? Updating someone on the TOS changes implies that they either requested to be updated or are a customer. I understand the idea behind preferring to err on the side of informing too many people rather than too few, but we should value the recipient's time and attention as well. And once we do that, I believe it's clear that the sender has to spend the extra time to figure out who should receive this email and who shouldn't.

luckylion 6y ago

> but they can (and have to) apply to a transaction you did 3 years ago (which will now be held for 7 years rather than 2). Are you sure? Laws that compel you to do something usually don't go into effect retroactively. They're like price-hikes in that regard: you can't just unilaterally decide that your customer's monthly subscription fee has doubled since three years ago. In any case, it wouldn't have anything to do with their TOS or privacy policies, and I don't think they'd have to inform you about their compliance with the current laws. > they should probably inform you about changes in their privacy policies, even if they don't affect you personally You're not a customer at that point, why would you be getting information that only concerns customers? Updating someone on the TOS changes implies that they either requested to be updated or are a customer. I understand the idea behind preferring to err on the side of informing too many people rather than too few, but we should value the recipient's time and attention as well. And once we do that, I believe it's clear that the sender has to spend the extra time to figure out who should receive this email and who shouldn't.