3 ms·

I have no problem with this. We should not have to rename ourselves, or change our language because of computers or because of lazy companies' refusal to modern

by notJim 5y ago

I have no problem with this. We should not have to rename ourselves, or change our language because of computers or because of lazy companies' refusal to modernize. Both computers and companies serve us, not the other way around.

akersten 5y ago
I'm not saying this is a bad outcome (modernization is overall a Good Thing), I'm saying it's bad that the GDPR is being used to achieve it. Before today, you cannot seriously tell me that (hypothetical) United Airlines being unable to print æ on your boarding pass would be a GDPR violation. No one would even have considered it. The best "GDPR auditors" that popped up to save the day with expensive consulting would have glossed right over it. And yet the overly broad language of the regulation allowed this contrived gotcha. And now any company that can't support emojis in your surname is now in the Naughty Bucket of GDPR Violators. I'm just shocked how so many hackers are ok with this law existing in its current form, just because it sometimes achieves things that they like. If we find ourselves asking "what else can we hit with this hammer," it's a bad law.
- detaro 5y ago
  Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. (and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything)
  - akersten 5y ago
    > Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect data sure, that's part of what the law grants you. But I believe this case is novel in that the data is as correct as possible (for intents and purpose of banking) yet the courts are requiring a cosmetic adjustment to the data. Cosmetic as in: it does not change the bank's or customer's understanding of the contract and business organization (i.e. I'm not trying to downplay ones attachment to accented letters, I'm talking about correct identification for business purposes). > and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything) Why not? What language in the GDPR would prevent that? It's the same violation as this case: the name is not displaying how the data subject wants it.
    - FateOfNations 5y ago
      > cosmetic adjustment I also fail to see the great importance of it, but apparently some people see it more than just a cosmetic issue...

by notJim 5y ago

akersten 5y ago

I'm not saying this is a bad outcome (modernization is overall a Good Thing), I'm saying it's bad that the GDPR is being used to achieve it. Before today, you cannot seriously tell me that (hypothetical) United Airlines being unable to print æ on your boarding pass would be a GDPR violation. No one would even have considered it. The best "GDPR auditors" that popped up to save the day with expensive consulting would have glossed right over it. And yet the overly broad language of the regulation allowed this contrived gotcha. And now any company that can't support emojis in your surname is now in the Naughty Bucket of GDPR Violators. I'm just shocked how so many hackers are ok with this law existing in its current form, just because it sometimes achieves things that they like. If we find ourselves asking "what else can we hit with this hammer," it's a bad law.

detaro 5y ago
Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. (and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything)
- akersten 5y ago
  > Companies no longer getting away with misspelling customer names has absolutely been something that has been discussed before this case. Correcting incorrect data sure, that's part of what the law grants you. But I believe this case is novel in that the data is as correct as possible (for intents and purpose of banking) yet the courts are requiring a cosmetic adjustment to the data. Cosmetic as in: it does not change the bank's or customer's understanding of the contract and business organization (i.e. I'm not trying to downplay ones attachment to accented letters, I'm talking about correct identification for business purposes). > and at the same time, this doesn't mean every contrived example of a name and where a name might appear actually has to support everything) Why not? What language in the GDPR would prevent that? It's the same violation as this case: the name is not displaying how the data subject wants it.
  - FateOfNations 5y ago
    > cosmetic adjustment I also fail to see the great importance of it, but apparently some people see it more than just a cosmetic issue...