4 ms·

There's no special protection for LGTB, but sexual orientation is considered sensitive information. If you tell advertisers (implicitely or explicitely) whether

by 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.
    - anticristi 6y ago
      "Jein" (German for "yno"). Look at it in historic context. This article can be seen as an anti-holocaust clause. Don't collect data that was too often used to harm minorities.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        Yet many data that aren't listed under it can also be used to harm minorities, and many data that are, can not. How exactly does biometric data to identify a person, but not a name and address to do the same differ in how much it can be used to harm minorities? They are both a means to uniquely triangulate the identity of a person, one is arbitrarily allowed but the other is not. It's as arbitrary as if not permitting murder with poisons, but permit it so long as it be done with a knife.
        anticristi 6y ago
        A database of names and addresses does not tell you who in that list is a minority. You can't do: SELECT address AS to_harm WHERE sexual_orientation IN ('unusual');
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago

by yarcob 6y ago

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.
  - anticristi 6y ago
    "Jein" (German for "yno"). Look at it in historic context. This article can be seen as an anti-holocaust clause. Don't collect data that was too often used to harm minorities.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Yet many data that aren't listed under it can also be used to harm minorities, and many data that are, can not. How exactly does biometric data to identify a person, but not a name and address to do the same differ in how much it can be used to harm minorities? They are both a means to uniquely triangulate the identity of a person, one is arbitrarily allowed but the other is not. It's as arbitrary as if not permitting murder with poisons, but permit it so long as it be done with a knife.
      - anticristi 6y ago
        A database of names and addresses does not tell you who in that list is a minority. You can't do: SELECT address AS to_harm WHERE sexual_orientation IN ('unusual');
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago