4 ms·

What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? Because 'dont abuse your ownership of personal data' is pretty much what it boils down to.

charcircuit 5y ago
>What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? It tries to restrict data. Information wants to be free. It has no owner.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  What is this, Slashdot ca 1996? Private information in fact does have an owner: the user that it reflects on.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Once you share information it is no longer private unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar. If you meant personal information then that doesn't make sense either. No one owns the fact that George Washington was male. It is just a statement that could be true or false. George Washington has no control over me spreading this information. Especially since he is dead.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy', you may want to adjust your definition to the one that the rest of the world works so that we can have meaningful conversations. George Washington's gender is of no consideration whatsoever in this discussion, so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        >You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy' I used the word private, but not privacy. I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at. >so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman. It was an example of data pertaining to someone. I brought it up since I didn't think the word private made sense.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        The GDPR, which is what you are commenting on is all about privacy and private data shared with companies for the goal of processing with a specific purpose in mind. Privacy and private are very well defined terms in that context, and you are adding a unique spin on it that makes fruitful discussion impossible. 'information wants to be free' is a dumb line that got passed around a lot in the 90's by people who thought that they were being clever, but it turns out that there is lots of information that doesn't want to be free at all, and some of that information is about you and you also don't want it to be free. Your example is nonsensical, and does not further the discussion either.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      > unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar. Now you're getting it. We, the European public, have decided to put anyone handling our personal data under "something similar to an NDA". We call it GDPR.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Data should be restricted, when it pertains to an individual who wants it to be restricted - basically everyone in the EU.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Then would you mind posting a dump of your email archive here? Or does that data have an owner?
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    Fantastic way of putting it.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    You can't upload files here and why should I do the work to dump it and give this potentially valuable information to you for free?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      That's called a cop-out.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  Should we therefore decriminalise unauthorised computer access and publication of data "owned" by any business or organisation?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > It has no owner. It's not about ownership. It's about my right to keep private information private. It's a right granted by law: the GDPR. > Information wants to be free That slogan originates in a sentence that contrasts "information wants to be expensive" (because it's so valuable) with "information wants to be free" (because it's so cheap to distribute). It's not like saying "televisions want to be free, so I think I'll steal one". I suspect that many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living; I suspect they're just jealous.
  - jen20 5y ago
    > many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living And if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves (though likely not capable of that) and shunned by all members of the industry with any ethical compass.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Agreed. But to clarify: I meant to include people who aren't directly PII sellers, just workers whose employer happens to sell PII, and even website operators with an ad-network on their site. They're just trying to earn a living, and I'm sure most of them are capable of shame. A website operator who runs Google ads and scripts on their website isn't evil. They're just "awaiting instruction".
cblconfederate 5y ago
The idea that some data is owned, and that people can obtain ownership of data that belongs to other entities is as moronic as claiming that the CO2 i breathed is owned by me. Data is data, it's not PII or whatever stupid contraptiion lawyers came up with to keep themselves busy If EU wanted to ban tracked ads, it should make a law bans tracked ads, that simple. Not only it would instantly achieve the desired effect (which GDPR did NOT), it would level the playing field for more ethical companies to thrive within the EU.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  You are totally misinterpreting what GDPR is for, so it makes sense you'd be unable to recognize the benefits. Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to. And companies should not be able to capture that data, sell it and share it without explicit consent. Which GDPR does achieve.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    > Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to This is an almost undefined concept. Data is not copyright, they are observations. Plus for many kinds of data ownership is hard to define, e.g. genetic data which is largely shared by all of us.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      You can try as hard as you can to wriggle out from understanding what this is all about but it is actually pretty clear: data supplied by an individual is the property of that individual, they have the right to informed consent on what it is used for, they can ask you to delete it, they can ask you to update it or review it. In some cases other laws (for instance: tax law) can make it mandatory for you to keep certain records, for which there are exceptions. That's basically it. So it's not an 'undefined concept', it is extremely clear and the text of the law is actually quite legible so there is no real reason not to be informed about this if it affects you in any way (which it likely does).

charcircuit 5y ago

>What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? It tries to restrict data. Information wants to be free. It has no owner.

jacquesm 5y ago
What is this, Slashdot ca 1996? Private information in fact does have an owner: the user that it reflects on.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Once you share information it is no longer private unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar. If you meant personal information then that doesn't make sense either. No one owns the fact that George Washington was male. It is just a statement that could be true or false. George Washington has no control over me spreading this information. Especially since he is dead.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy', you may want to adjust your definition to the one that the rest of the world works so that we can have meaningful conversations. George Washington's gender is of no consideration whatsoever in this discussion, so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      >You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy' I used the word private, but not privacy. I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at. >so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman. It was an example of data pertaining to someone. I brought it up since I didn't think the word private made sense.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        The GDPR, which is what you are commenting on is all about privacy and private data shared with companies for the goal of processing with a specific purpose in mind. Privacy and private are very well defined terms in that context, and you are adding a unique spin on it that makes fruitful discussion impossible. 'information wants to be free' is a dumb line that got passed around a lot in the 90's by people who thought that they were being clever, but it turns out that there is lots of information that doesn't want to be free at all, and some of that information is about you and you also don't want it to be free. Your example is nonsensical, and does not further the discussion either.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    > unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar. Now you're getting it. We, the European public, have decided to put anyone handling our personal data under "something similar to an NDA". We call it GDPR.
breakfastduck 5y ago
Data should be restricted, when it pertains to an individual who wants it to be restricted - basically everyone in the EU.
MauranKilom 5y ago
Then would you mind posting a dump of your email archive here? Or does that data have an owner?
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Fantastic way of putting it.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  You can't upload files here and why should I do the work to dump it and give this potentially valuable information to you for free?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That's called a cop-out.
Mordisquitos 5y ago
Should we therefore decriminalise unauthorised computer access and publication of data "owned" by any business or organisation?
denton-scratch 5y ago
> It has no owner. It's not about ownership. It's about my right to keep private information private. It's a right granted by law: the GDPR. > Information wants to be free That slogan originates in a sentence that contrasts "information wants to be expensive" (because it's so valuable) with "information wants to be free" (because it's so cheap to distribute). It's not like saying "televisions want to be free, so I think I'll steal one". I suspect that many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living; I suspect they're just jealous.
- jen20 5y ago
  > many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living And if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves (though likely not capable of that) and shunned by all members of the industry with any ethical compass.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Agreed. But to clarify: I meant to include people who aren't directly PII sellers, just workers whose employer happens to sell PII, and even website operators with an ad-network on their site. They're just trying to earn a living, and I'm sure most of them are capable of shame. A website operator who runs Google ads and scripts on their website isn't evil. They're just "awaiting instruction".

cblconfederate 5y ago

The idea that some data is owned, and that people can obtain ownership of data that belongs to other entities is as moronic as claiming that the CO2 i breathed is owned by me. Data is data, it's not PII or whatever stupid contraptiion lawyers came up with to keep themselves busy If EU wanted to ban tracked ads, it should make a law bans tracked ads, that simple. Not only it would instantly achieve the desired effect (which GDPR did NOT), it would level the playing field for more ethical companies to thrive within the EU.

breakfastduck 5y ago
You are totally misinterpreting what GDPR is for, so it makes sense you'd be unable to recognize the benefits. Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to. And companies should not be able to capture that data, sell it and share it without explicit consent. Which GDPR does achieve.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > Data IS owned, by the person the data pertains to This is an almost undefined concept. Data is not copyright, they are observations. Plus for many kinds of data ownership is hard to define, e.g. genetic data which is largely shared by all of us.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You can try as hard as you can to wriggle out from understanding what this is all about but it is actually pretty clear: data supplied by an individual is the property of that individual, they have the right to informed consent on what it is used for, they can ask you to delete it, they can ask you to update it or review it. In some cases other laws (for instance: tax law) can make it mandatory for you to keep certain records, for which there are exceptions. That's basically it. So it's not an 'undefined concept', it is extremely clear and the text of the law is actually quite legible so there is no real reason not to be informed about this if it affects you in any way (which it likely does).