3 ms·

They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret Here is

by jjcon 4y ago

They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret Here is one of the provisions of interest: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/ Ubisoft also cites GDPR provisions for deletion of inactive accounts: https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/ubisoft-removes-player-account-all-in-accordance-with-the-law/za3e20 https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/ubisoft-removes-player...

MattPalmer1086 4y ago
This is nonsense. While you cannot keep personal data lying around forever with GDPR, deleting accounts after 6 months or a year or inactivity is a choice being made by the company. They could equally well have said that an account which was inactive for 2 years, or 3 years would be deleted and still be legally compliant.
- jjcon 4y ago
  The requirement is “no longer than necessary” - meta started migrating people away from oculus accounts with the release of the quest 2 over 2 years ago in 2020. If you have regulators breathing down your neck being conservative on time isn’t a terrible idea.
rlpb 4y ago
> They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret Malicious compliance. They deliberately misinterpret and continue to get pulled up on it. For example, just recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63784393 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63784393 This completely contradicts any argument that their interpretation of privacy regulation is remotely compliant. They cross the line in their favour relentlessly.
- jjcon 4y ago
  Malicious compliance maybe but compliance nonetheless - I’m not necessarily defending them here for the record but GDPR has been cited for a lot of inactive account removals recently - meta is already feeling heat from EU regulators - they may not want to take chances.

by jjcon 4y ago

MattPalmer1086 4y ago

This is nonsense. While you cannot keep personal data lying around forever with GDPR, deleting accounts after 6 months or a year or inactivity is a choice being made by the company. They could equally well have said that an account which was inactive for 2 years, or 3 years would be deleted and still be legally compliant.

jjcon 4y ago
The requirement is “no longer than necessary” - meta started migrating people away from oculus accounts with the release of the quest 2 over 2 years ago in 2020. If you have regulators breathing down your neck being conservative on time isn’t a terrible idea.

rlpb 4y ago

> They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret Malicious compliance. They deliberately misinterpret and continue to get pulled up on it. For example, just recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63784393 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63784393 This completely contradicts any argument that their interpretation of privacy regulation is remotely compliant. They cross the line in their favour relentlessly.

jjcon 4y ago
Malicious compliance maybe but compliance nonetheless - I’m not necessarily defending them here for the record but GDPR has been cited for a lot of inactive account removals recently - meta is already feeling heat from EU regulators - they may not want to take chances.