cccbbbaaa

7 ms·

61.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Thank you for the clarification.
62.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
The important points here are “Taking into account the state of the art” and “appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk”. For example, this case is cited in the page linked abov
63.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
> Unfortunately, national security services are not subject to GDPR or LED at all They are AFAIK, but can be exempt of articles 12 to 22 under national law. What did I miss?
64.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
It's a myth that gets repeated here. In reality, it's more subtle. Laws can be the legal basis for some processing, if it is deemed proportional; and in some countries (eg. France), government agencies cannot be fined. GDPR does
65.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
The violation happened in 2021. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs... I'm actually surprised the ICO can fine the UK government. This can't happen in France, for instance.
66.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
You can find a lot of guidelines around GDPR or ePrivacy made by the EDPB or a DPA. For instance: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... This says that cookies for a shopping cart or
67.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Cookies banner are a response to the ePrivacy directive from 2002.
68.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
I had the same on a 2003 Twingo. Very handy, except for that time when I horned at a poor jogger on the side of the road instead of activating the turn signal :(
69.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
No, ePrivacy article 5(3) always had an exception for strictly necessary purposes, with clear guidance of what it means from DPAs and WP29 (now EDPB). I agree with the rest of your message though.
70.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
It's a GDPR fine above 20M€, so it's already based on their income.
71.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Asseline can claim what he wants, but, unfortunately for him, the FDR and reconstitutions (performed in a simulator and in a real plane) do not back him up. And the only “proof” of FDR tampering comes from someone who did not understand wh
72.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
AF296 crashed because the pilot selected TOGA too late for the engines to spool up in time, and was completely unprepared. There was no issue with the FCS, nor the autopilot which was disengaged. For Airbus Industrie 129, it seems that the
73.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
74.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
No need to be confrontational, I'm not opposed to FDR/CVR streaming. I just dislike solutions to problems that have already been solved, and we were just pointing out that starlink does not bring anything to the table vs. ADS-B,
75.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
We know where MH370 disappeared thanks to ADS-B, and after it was disconnected, it was still seen by primary radars.
76.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Le Pen has toned down her anti-EU stance a lot since Phillipot left the RN. Leaving was no longer part of her program for 2022, for instance.
77.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
To be exact, companies with fewer than 250 employees are exempt of some obligations in article 30.
78.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
The right to be removed from search results is not systematic, there is a balance to attain between privacy and public interest. Corruption charges from politicians will be hard to scrub, for instance. See: GDPR, article 17(3)a: https:&
79.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Yeah, this specifically: >The deployment of that js file itself requires consent is an “interesting” interpretation of ePrivacy. This: >the running of the javascript within the browser to ascertain how the browser is behaving also req
80.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Consent was already required to be freely given under the DPD. Agree on the two other points, it seems that GDPR clarified this–I thought it was already covered by the DPD.
81.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
No. Please read the ePrivacy directive (the so-called “cookie law”), especially article 5(3): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >3. Member States shall ensure that the
82.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Stop with the FUD. GDPR is not enforceable if you respect 1-3. https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=APD/GBA_(Belgium)_-_161/2...
83.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
You are wrong, cf. GDPR article 3. The Belgian DPA even ruled that GDPR is unenforceable if the controller is not located in EEA, does not serve anyone in EEA, and does not monitor EU individuals. https://gdprhub.eu/index.
84.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
It was enforceable before too, thanks to the Data Protection Directive from 1995. GDPR is an harmonization of the various national transcriptions of the DPD, plus higher fines, a better cooperation mechanism, and data portability (which is
85.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
GDPR article 2(2)c. It will not apply to the receiver of the email, but maybe to the provider. Perhaps it depends on the kind of relationship between the two parties. Mailing lists will be covered. Side note: I know someone who requested
86.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
It is, according to the EDPS. https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-wat... Unfortunately, the commission doesn’t care about passing illegal legislation (DRD, the 3 EU-US transfer agreement
87.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
Data connection retention is 1 year in France, not 13. This sounds like something related to taxes (eg. Invoices). (Also, this law was ruled unconstitutional but shenanigans ensued.)
88.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
I don't know where your citations come from. EU law does not require such a thing. The Data Retention Directive mandated retention from 6 to 24 months, but it was invalidated by the CJUE years ago, and asserts that comparable nationa
89.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
>Good research No. All I did was opening enforcement tracker, click on France, and look for familiar names. It was faster than writing my previous comment. I knew about one of the Carrefour cases, and the Criteo case though. >The a
90.
by cccbbbaaa 3y ago
France against french companies: 40M€ for Criteo, 1M€ for Total, 1M+€ for AG2R, 2M€ and 800000€ for Carrefour, 600000€ for EDF, same for Accor, two 300000€ fines for Free, 125000€ for CityScoot, 500000€ for Brico Privé, 400000€ for the RATP

More ›