3 ms·

I am surprised by the reactions here. I did not receive that e-mail but I receive all sort of weird inquiries for my websites, (at least 2 or 3 per day). I don'

by janmo 5y ago

I am surprised by the reactions here. I did not receive that e-mail but I receive all sort of weird inquiries for my websites, (at least 2 or 3 per day). I don't understand why people are so mad about it or even panicking.

tomudding 5y ago
While I personally believe the questions stated were perfectly reasonable (and could have been genuine questions from someone), I can understand that people feel (legally) pressured to provide answers to the questions. Which puts this study in a grey area. With regard to GDPR, the "respond within x" is simply not applicable. The one month period is strictly for any requests concerning Article 15 through 22 and none of the questions are talking about any of that. Now, if one of the questions was something along the lines of "do you process any information related to me?" then it would potentially fall under Article 15.1 and would require a timely response. IANAL, however, I think in such cases you could simply point to a privacy policy, which you are already required to have.
DangitBobby 5y ago
Mentioning a specific section of a law is threatening to hold them to the letter of that law. What happens if they don't follow the letter of that law? The insinuation is legal action will follow.
- janmo 5y ago
  They did not threat anything, they were just asking information regarding their personal data. And therefor they were in their right.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    You don't have to actually directly say the threat for the threat to be known. For example, if you're hitting me up for protection money, and you said "it would be a shame if something were to happen to x", that would reasonably be understood as a threat. Notice how you don't have to directly say that you will be the reason something happens to x.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    There is no real person behind the inquiry. This is what made it deceitful and unethical.

by janmo 5y ago

tomudding 5y ago

While I personally believe the questions stated were perfectly reasonable (and could have been genuine questions from someone), I can understand that people feel (legally) pressured to provide answers to the questions. Which puts this study in a grey area. With regard to GDPR, the "respond within x" is simply not applicable. The one month period is strictly for any requests concerning Article 15 through 22 and none of the questions are talking about any of that. Now, if one of the questions was something along the lines of "do you process any information related to me?" then it would potentially fall under Article 15.1 and would require a timely response. IANAL, however, I think in such cases you could simply point to a privacy policy, which you are already required to have.

DangitBobby 5y ago

Mentioning a specific section of a law is threatening to hold them to the letter of that law. What happens if they don't follow the letter of that law? The insinuation is legal action will follow.

janmo 5y ago
They did not threat anything, they were just asking information regarding their personal data. And therefor they were in their right.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  You don't have to actually directly say the threat for the threat to be known. For example, if you're hitting me up for protection money, and you said "it would be a shame if something were to happen to x", that would reasonably be understood as a threat. Notice how you don't have to directly say that you will be the reason something happens to x.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  There is no real person behind the inquiry. This is what made it deceitful and unethical.