ust
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
413
Submissions
61
Member since
Feb 15
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
The post is now here:
https://reason.com/2019/09/09/scraping-a-public-website-does...
Comment · 8 years ago
Yeah, I agree with everything you said.
It would be interesting to know whether the big companies have addressed (at least partially) their GDPR compliance. Maybe they do just "play Russian roulette" like you said, and hope for the best.. Of course, implementation guidelines are not yet fully defined (like WP29 opinions, some of them will change, even then, those opinions are not legally binding).
Comment · 8 years ago
Not every company needs a DPO though, e.g. check here:
https://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html
Maybe his company doesn't need one. Of course, whether he has a DPO or not, still the question remains of how to "properly" delete the personal data.
Comment · 8 years ago
I'm sorry, but your comment about Yugoslavia is extremely simplistic, if not outright wrong. While ethnic tensions certainly played a large role, the causes for the war were numerous, and also include outside influences (end of Cold War, geopolitical situation, etc.). BTW, Tito was dead for 11 years before the war started, and while he certainly was a dictator, albeit somewhat more lenient than other communist dictators, describing him as a "violent warlord" is a mischaracterization.
Comment · 8 years ago
Hi, I'm involved with GDPR for my work, although in academic context, i.e. the primary motive in processing of personal data is in security, provisioning services, accounting purposes, etc. Also, I'm not a lawyer, and this is just my personal opinion.
So, while I do work in academic environment, I do have contact with people from industry, and they are taking this seriously. (Of topic, this actually created a new business opportunity, for compliance with the GDPR). However, GDPR is not that different from the Directive, if you were compliant with the Directive, chances are, you're probably (mostly) compliant with the GDPR. Yes, the conditions for consent are strengthened, and since now we have a Regulation, it is valid in all countries. There are other differences, and it is more stringent now, but it is not drastically different from the Directive. BTW, this link[1] have a nice overview (I'm completely unaffiliated with that firm, I just like how they structured it...):
[1] https://www.whitecase.com/publications/article/gdpr-handbook...
One thing that people lost sight of, at least in my opinion, that GDPR is not just about punishment, or stopping the processing of personal data, it is also about transparency. People should not be coy/evasive/unclear about what kind of data one is collecting and for which purpose. This is one of the most important things (again, in my opinion). Processing of personal data has a valid and important purpose, and the GDPR is not there to stop it.
And for the question will the GDPR be enforced, I think it will. For the moment, though, all data protection authorities (DPAs) are a bit overloaded, and I suspect that will be the case in the near future. But obviously, EU and EC are taking GDPR quite seriously.
Hope this answers your question.
(Edited for grammar...)
Comment · 9 years ago
There was an interesting discussion about 4A implications between Orin Kerr (who thinks, that according to 3rd party doctrine, there was no need for a warrant, and therefore no 4A protections of cell-cite data) and Alex Abdo (of ACLU, who argues that, since the collection was too excessive, it does trigger 4A protections).
Comment · 9 years ago
I have Nexus 4, too, and changed stock OS to LineageOS (previosly I've used cyanogenmod) and it works great, and now I have Android 7.1.2. and I receive weekly updates...
I realize that "flashing" the ROM is not what normal user would do, but it has become very easy to do, and it does extend the (usable) life of the phone..
https://www.lawfareblog.com/tiktok-and-law-primer-case-you-n...
In short, a president has substantial powers (granted by Congress via IEEPA and CFIUS) to institute a ban or force a divestment of any company "engaged in interstate commerce in the United States", if "national emergency" or "national security" is involved. So, legally, it seems that president can ban TikTok, under certain conditions (that may not be so difficult to achieve). The link above only explains the current legal framework, not whether banning the TikTok is in itself a good or a bad thing. IANAL, so I can't judge the competence of the presented arguments, but it is written by a respected law professor.