>Seems like laws don't understand how tech works... That's pretty much the definition of a law. Laws are written for people, by people. Not for computers. Thi

>Seems like laws don't understand how tech works... That's pretty much the definition of a law. Laws are written for people, by people. Not for computers. This is sadly an unintended consequence of a very broad interpretation of GDPR, where an IP address is deemed as personally identifiable information. If someone wanted to take this to absurd levels, similar argument, as has been made by this court, could be used to make the entire Internet illegal under GDPR - sending a packet exposes personal information of the sender to various third parties (routers of various ISPs) that the sender didn't consent to. And given that the recipient (service provider, website, whatever) could have arranged for having the data transferred on a floppy disk or by a pigeon instead ... It is not only GDPR that suffers from this - e.g. in Austria it is illegal to drive with a dashcam because their court has ruled that a dashcam amounts to recording someone without their consent - and if you do so, it exposes you to a 20k€ fine!