6 ms·

GDPR contains special protections for LGBT people, but Grindr shared their users private information with third parties anyway, since they argued that Grindr us

GDPR contains special protections for LGBT people, but Grindr shared their users private information with third parties anyway, since they argued that Grindr users might be straight... Pretty shocking and absurd.

detaro 6y ago
specifically, > data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation is among the things with stricter rules under Article 9: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
cblconfederate 6y ago
no more special than for straight people
- speedgoose 6y ago
  Grindr collects and share quite a lot. Things such as HIV status, sexual preferences, body type, advertising ids, or GPS coordinates. To third parties from the app, and not always using encryption.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    I meant that gdpr has no special provisions for LGBT
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      What do you think would be the chances of having an article 9 provision specifically mentioning 'sexual orientation' if everybody was straight? https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
      - nulbyte 6y ago
        Presumeably, similar arguments could be made in each of the other classes, but none of them work. While these protections might be related to a history of discrimination, they do not apply to some more then others. They apply to everyone in the class equally.
      - Hamuko 6y ago
        What would be the chances of having an article 9 provision specifically mentioning "philosophical beliefs" if everyone had the same philosophical beliefs? Of course, people don't have the same philosophical beliefs which is a pretty caveat to the whole argument.
yarcob 6y ago
There's no special protection for LGTB, but sexual orientation is considered sensitive information. If you tell advertisers (implicitely or explicitely) whether a user is gay or straight, that requires explicit consent.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  That is quite silly if it truly be so — are we moving to the Anglo-Saxon “protected classes” model now? If I understand this correctly, it is not a problem, or a lesser or different problem if such a company share that a client finds being stroked on his earlobes to be highly arousing, or is a big aficionado of the “big black cock”, as those are not “sexual orientations”? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction I am not used to from E.U. regulations. P.s.: I see that someone else quoted “data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation”, — which is already significantly less arbitrary; the “or sexual orientation” is merely a superfluous inclusive.
  - yarcob 6y ago
    I just looked up the relevant section in the GDPR, and it's actually pretty clear: It's section 9 "Processing of special categories of personal data" https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ > 1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited > 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies: > (a) the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject; > (...)
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      So any data that does not fall under that blacklist is free game? I still find that quite arbitrary to make that distinction, not to mention the wiggle room it leaves with many of those categories being rather ill-defined. At what point does an opinion become “political”? what is “racial” an “ethnic origin” is quite open to interpretation; when is a belief “philosophical”? The way I understand this paragraph, it could conceivably be so that an opinion that, say, consoles are not suited for f.p.s. games could freely be processed, but an opinion that U.K. roads are unsuitable for cycling could not, as the latter would be more easily classified as “political” even though the former could too, and the later could conceivably not as well? I find that very arbitrary.
eplanit 6y ago
Why should one group have special protection relative to another?
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  They don't. Tracking that someone is straight would be subject to the same rule.

detaro 6y ago

specifically, > data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation is among the things with stricter rules under Article 9: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/

cblconfederate 6y ago

no more special than for straight people

speedgoose 6y ago
Grindr collects and share quite a lot. Things such as HIV status, sexual preferences, body type, advertising ids, or GPS coordinates. To third parties from the app, and not always using encryption.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  I meant that gdpr has no special provisions for LGBT
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    What do you think would be the chances of having an article 9 provision specifically mentioning 'sexual orientation' if everybody was straight? https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/
    - nulbyte 6y ago
      Presumeably, similar arguments could be made in each of the other classes, but none of them work. While these protections might be related to a history of discrimination, they do not apply to some more then others. They apply to everyone in the class equally.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      What would be the chances of having an article 9 provision specifically mentioning "philosophical beliefs" if everyone had the same philosophical beliefs? Of course, people don't have the same philosophical beliefs which is a pretty caveat to the whole argument.

yarcob 6y ago

There's no special protection for LGTB, but sexual orientation is considered sensitive information. If you tell advertisers (implicitely or explicitely) whether a user is gay or straight, that requires explicit consent.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
That is quite silly if it truly be so — are we moving to the Anglo-Saxon “protected classes” model now? If I understand this correctly, it is not a problem, or a lesser or different problem if such a company share that a client finds being stroked on his earlobes to be highly arousing, or is a big aficionado of the “big black cock”, as those are not “sexual orientations”? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction I am not used to from E.U. regulations. P.s.: I see that someone else quoted “data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation”, — which is already significantly less arbitrary; the “or sexual orientation” is merely a superfluous inclusive.
- yarcob 6y ago
  I just looked up the relevant section in the GDPR, and it's actually pretty clear: It's section 9 "Processing of special categories of personal data" https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ > 1. Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited > 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if one of the following applies: > (a) the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject; > (...)
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    So any data that does not fall under that blacklist is free game? I still find that quite arbitrary to make that distinction, not to mention the wiggle room it leaves with many of those categories being rather ill-defined. At what point does an opinion become “political”? what is “racial” an “ethnic origin” is quite open to interpretation; when is a belief “philosophical”? The way I understand this paragraph, it could conceivably be so that an opinion that, say, consoles are not suited for f.p.s. games could freely be processed, but an opinion that U.K. roads are unsuitable for cycling could not, as the latter would be more easily classified as “political” even though the former could too, and the later could conceivably not as well? I find that very arbitrary.

eplanit 6y ago

Why should one group have special protection relative to another?

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
They don't. Tracking that someone is straight would be subject to the same rule.