Eurosisters... how could this happen?(This post is compliant with the Directive of the European Commission 8453 of 13 Feb 1997, the Regulation for Imageboard Posting of 8 Apr 2005, and the EEC Certification Requirements for Internet Shitposting)
>>102472497>Law comes out to protect citizens>Less start ups because they think they don't have to comply in other countriesWhat a shocker. Are you telling me next it's more profitable to exploit people? No way!
regulation only exists to punish and oppress the goyim. No other reason. GDPR doesn't do shit. It just exists as another humiliation ritual you have to perform for the elites, so that you can't accumulate wealth and avoid wagecucking for 50 years like cattle
>>102472571giants like faceboo, google, etc. and the governments (and EU itself) don't have to respect GDPR, faggot. They don't. They bribe and pay fines for skirt around it. Only subhumans have to worry about laws. This is why even in surveillance states like the UK and the US high ranking pedophiles like Epstein and Weinstein had literal pedo orgies, whereas if you start your own chan you get spammed with CP by the glowniggers and go to prison forever as a chomo
>>102472571It's not about having to comply, it's about having unclear laws that every court in every country interprets differently.Is IP logging (so the default logs every webserver makes) allowed by the GDPR or not? Nobody can answer this question definitely.Is having Fonts hosted on a CDN allowed by the GDPR or not? According to one single German court, it somehow isn't.Even if you want to comply, you can never be certain.It's completely suicidal to host a webservice as an EU business inside the EU.Just get a shell company from abroad and avoid all the legal trouble.
>>102472635>They only have to pay a few million every yearEven if they only had to pay legal fees it would still be discouraging the usage of user data. Also what you can't forget is the signal giving to the populace that they have to get their data and who receives it in order. >>102472660>it's about having unclear laws that every court in every country interprets differently.Entirely incorrect. A regulation functions directly.>Is IP logging (so the default logs every webserver makes) allowed by the GDPR or not? Nobody can answer this question definitely.Only for strictly necessary purposes or legitimate interest. >Is having Fonts hosted on a CDN allowed by the GDPR or not?Depends on the CDN>Even if you want to comply, you can never be certain.No, you can't because you got a surface level understanding. That's why you talk to a lawyer. If he was incorrect, he'd be your shield. >It's completely suicidal to host a webservice as an EU business inside the EU.Also applies if you're doing business in the EU. >Just get a shell company from abroad and avoid all the legal trouble.Ah yes, and then suddenly the states won't just want to get you for the GDPR but also possible tax evasions. Smart idea!
>>102472738every single one of your sentences is up to interpretation>strictly necessary purposes>legitimate interest>depends on which one>need more than surface level understanding>you need a lawyer>also applies if you are doing business in the EU (just that the only people who ever got dragged to court for it were inside the EU)still waiting for 4chan to get sued by the EU, idiot.
>>102472738Some voluntary firefighters running a hobby blog in Germany get sued and dragged to court, despite not storing any user info.The website you post on violates every single section of the GDPR and has no problems, despite being run by a french citizen (japanese expat).But its registered in the USA, so that might be the reason.
>>102472777>every single one of your sentences is up to interpretationNo, because the terms are defined in the regulation. >still waiting for 4chan to get sued by the EU, idiot.Because of GDPR? I don't see any reason currently.
>>102472818Message when when the EU shuts down 4chan because of its GDPR violations
>>102472816>Some voluntary firefighters running a hobby blog in Germany get sued and dragged to court, despite not storing any user info.Not because of GDPR. >The website you post on violates every single section of the GDPR and has no problemsAlso incorrect. >But its registered in the USA, so that might be the reason.No, MLAT exists. It's not like nations are different kingdoms at war with each other.
>>102472830Name the violations then
>>102472833Why doesn't the EU sue 4chan?Why do they only target small private people within the EU who run some little blogs and business websites?
>>102472777checked
>>102472843I see a cookie being saved without my given allowance.I see advertisement trackers.I see google-analytics.
>>102472864Also fingerprinting and yet another tracking cookie from the cloudflare challenge.I got like four different companies tracking me here at the minimum.
>>102472864>I see a cookie being saved without my given allowance.That's not how the GDPR works>I see advertisement trackers.Again, not how the GDPR works. >I see google-analytics.Don't make me repeat myself. Anyway, if you're that confident that the GDPR doesn't affect small businesses, then this thread has no point whatsoever. >inb4 it's but murica is saving meNo, unless you think all big tech companies are european
>>102472497Daily reminder that GDPR fines can be up to 600,000 euros or 2% of the income, whichever is higher. A small European startup that makes a mistake can literally be forced to pay more money than all its members have. Meanwhile, big corporations making billions can willingly break the law as much as they want and still keep 98% of their income. It's literally a law against European startups, nothing more, nothing less, and meme cookie banners shouldn't stop people from realizing why this law was made.The only reason the EU exists, and the only motivation behind each and every one the laws it passes is to make European citizens slaves to American corporations.
>>102473174>Daily reminder that GDPR fines can be up to 600,000 euros or 2% of the income, whichever is higherPer violation, also you can get additional fines for every day you don't fix the problem. Also where are you getting those numbers from? I found 20 Mil € or 4% of global income. A maximum fine is also extremely hindering for big tech.
>>102472497>my business MUST sell personal data if it wants to be profitable!
>>102472660>It's not about having to comply, it's about having unclear laws that every court in every country interprets differently.>>Is IP logging (so the default logs every webserver makes) allowed by the GDPR or not? Nobody can answer this question definitely.>Is having Fonts hosted on a CDN allowed by the GDPR or not? According to one single German court, it somehow isn't.>>Even if you want to comply, you can never be certain.>It's completely suicidal to host a webservice as an EU business inside the EU.>Just get a shell company from abroad and avoid all the legal trouble.This. Fucking this. I absolutely agree. Normalfags (that includes /g/) absolutely can't understand how problematic all this is. I wanted to look into what I data I could store without exposing myself to legal trouble if I ever had a web service, and the conclusion I had to come to was that LITERALLY NOTHING.Just as a lot of laws in the EU, the GDPR is vague. What do you do in law if something is nor clear? You assume the worst, obviously. But assuming the worst in the EU means you shouldn't do anything. Yet, Facebook and Google are doing perfectly fine in the EU. Facebook can afford lawyers and get around GDPR, but a single developer cannot. There's no practical way to start small in the EU, you either have to be a big corporation with lawyers, or you will never get there, not even when you're lucky (well, it's hard to get lucky to begin with if you keep getting GDPR requests and don't even know what the fuck to do with them, so you don't even start).I am not at all surprised, the EU stifles most creative endeavors of its people by insanely expensive and strict taxation and regulation systems in general, and GDPR is just one of those.
>>102473311can you show me the section where the GDPR says that it is only relevant if data is being sold?
Big Tech can perfectly exist in the EU.None of those shitskin fantasies of "the EU sticking it to those large companies" ever became true.But the opposite... lawyers who make a living by dragging hairdressers to court who used a font from google on their little website... is very much true.Big Tech can afford an army of lawyers.Big Tech can afford simply bribing politicians in Brussels.Big Tech can simply lie to you ("sure, lol, here have your data print, we don't have more stored, promise ;)").Big Tech can afford fines.A little StartUp can not.But why would the EU supporting shitskins know that? They don't do anything in their lifes besides worshipping the institution that hands out gibs.>>102472738>i can't give you an answer on a single one of those questions>just get a lawyerYou realize how ridiculous this is?
>>102472777Trips of TRVTHNVKE
>>102474187>You realize how ridiculous this is?No, it's not ridiculous since all of these terms are already laid out in the GDPR. If anon can't manage to read the definitions he should just get a lawyer.
You might know that in the EU, an individual can request a print-out of his data from any website that is in the EU.But did you know that if this happens, the website owner is now OBLIGATED to save copies of that data for an additional year, unless the user specifically requests deletion?Because the user has one year time to fill a complaint. And if the user fills a complaint and it goes to court, the website owner must be able to present the data.And the DSA, that requires you to censor user-generated content, also doesn't work without storing data.In the EU, you are living in a dichotomy where you are simultaneously not allowed to store data but are required by law to store data.The only way to compy is to make an entry portal where the user has to sign a large legal text, and store as much as possible.
>>102474443>Because the user has one year time to fill a complaint. And if the user fills a complaint and it goes to court, the website owner must be able to present the data.That is incorrect. It will greatly aide the website owner or the representative to have the data in order to prove what is stored and what isn't but you are not forced to do that.
>>102474400Are you able to read the definitions?Those are very obvious simple questions that you should be able to answer:>Is IP logging (so the default logs every webserver makes) allowed by the GDPR or not?>Is having Fonts hosted on a CDN allowed by the GDPR or not?>Is a session cookie allowed b the GDPR (like a login cookie)?>Is a cookie for language selection allowed by the GDPR?>Is fingerprinting and cookies from the Cloudflare challenge allowed by the GDPR (if you enable that challenge, it showed BEFORE you are able to show a cookie banner, its a potential huge trap).
>>102474443You're talking out of your ass.
>>102474471In Austria a court ruled against a website owner and fined him because he did delete data of a user after he had handed out a data report to him.
Fuck the EU
>>102474496>Are you able to read the definitions?Yes, they are public knowledge because they are defined in the regulation itself. >What about these termsAlready answered all of them. Read the regulation and them come back. Again, if you can't do that, just get a lawyer. >>102474533Austrian problem, you can not be forced to retain data UNLESS you are already obligated to do so for other legal purposes.
>>102474563>Austrian problemSee?Do you understand now?It's a vague retarded law that gets interpreted differently by country and even by court.Of course you can now claim that you personally are smarter than Austrian and German and Spanish courts and that all the member states simply interpret the brilliance of the EU wrong... but you are just shifting blame.So the EU is a god and we should kiss the feet of Von der Layen, but we are STILL in a situation where it's very destructive for EU businesses to run websites, because of those dumb member states.
>>102474511I am sure that many of the EU worshippers are shitskin refugees squatting in Germany.They can read pic related.
>>102472497>"no you dont get to steal data and use it for your garbage chatbots">less investing in chatbots occuri'm pretty sure they were aware this would happen you ai techbro slopsumer.
>>102472850>Why doesn't the EU sue 4chan?I guess I can give you an answer: IANAL, but judiciaries don't work automatically like that. they COULD sue 4chan tomorrow, or maybe never. but YOU could sue 4chan too, using the laws. SOMEONE has to sue them in the first place, and provide arguments for that.
>>102472497>ban shitty exploitive companies>the shitty exploitive companies leavePutin really pootin rn huh
>>102474646Ich don't sprepche nazische danke scheisse>Information can be provided to the data subject in writing, electronically or verbally as per Art. 12(1) sentences 2 and 3 of the GDPR, depending on the circumstance. According to Art. 12(3) GDPR information must be provided without undue delay but at latest within one month. Only in reasoned cases may this one-month deadline be exceptionally exceeded. As a rule, the information has to be provided free of charge. If, in addition, further copies are requested, one can request a reasonable payment which reflects administrative costs. The controller is also allowed to refuse a data subject’s requests to right of access if it is unjustified or excessive. The controller additionally has the right, if he is processing a large volume of information about the data subject, that he or she specify their request within the right of access regarding specific data processing or kind of information.
>>102474619>It's a vague retarded law that gets interpreted differently by country and even by court.No, data retention for court purposes is national law, not the fault of the GDPR. If the Austrian courts claim you need to retain data independent of whether this data is connected GDPR or not, this is an Austrian problem.
>>102472497Don't worry in the long run it will lead to more startups. Don't ask how it just will okay? t. Ursula
>>102474443>>102474646Wait a minute.You don't just have to keep a copy of the requested data for a year.You have to be able to prove that you didn't have more data at the time, than what you sent him.And the only way how you could prove this is by keeping ALL logs.Lets say you have a server log that auto-prunes what is older than two weeks.You get a user request for data. So now you have to make a snapshot of all the data you have in this very moment and keep it for a year.
>>102474707>b-but local lawIT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU SHITSKIN, BECAUSE THIS LOCAL LAW WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT THE GDPRDo you guys even know how EU law works? It gets implemented in local laws.Being able to request your data is EU law.Being able to complain about the response is EU law.How would it be possible to handle a complaint without stored data? It fucking isn't.Yes, the EU is reqponsible for the logical consequences of its braindead decisions.
>>102474786>IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU SHITSKIN, BECAUSE THIS LOCAL LAW WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT THE GDPRAgain, this is incorrect. There are laws as to how courts operate and what they can request. This is the case before the GDPR was even conceived. >Do you guys even know how EU law works? It gets implemented in local laws.No, directives get implemented. Regulation work directly.>Being able to request your data is EU law.Correct>Being able to complain about the response is EU law.Correct>How would it be possible to handle a complaint without stored data? It fucking isn't.>you can not be forced to retain data UNLESS you are already obligated to do so for other legal purposes.>Yes, the EU is reqponsible for the logical consequences of its braindead decisions.No, again this is austrian law and an austrian problem.
>>102474829Had no such problems before the GDPR
>>102474829Amount of people getting sued because they didn't store data before the GDPR: 0Amount of people getting sued for hosting fonts on a CDN before the GDPR: 0Amount of people getting sued because they didn't doxx themselves on their website before the EU: 0
>>102474829>you can not be forced to retain data UNLESS you are already obligated to do so for other legal purposes.and this other legal purpose is the EU law that allows complaints after data requests done based on a EU law
>>102474723Server access logs are somehow, magically not included in GDPR :^)
>>102474852All wrong but granted a German exclusive problem before the GDPR.
>>102474834That's incorrect. >>102474852>Amount of people getting sued because they didn't store data before the GDPR: 0Again, Austrian problem. Go talk to Austria if you wanna complain about them forcing you to retain data just in case you get sued. >Amount of people getting sued for hosting fonts on a CDN before the GDPR: 0>Amount of people getting sued for CP before computers existed: 0>Amount of people getting sued because they didn't doxx themselves on their website before the EU: 0Also incorrect. Not only does the GDPR not force you to dox yourself as you can get a representative there were already laws in some nations before the GDPR existed with required you to have some person you can contact regarding the site. >>102474877>and this other legal purpose is the EU law that allows complaints after data requests done based on a EU lawNo, it's Austrian law about how they deal with their courts.
>>102474893How many times do we have to tell you that IT DOESN'T MATTER if you blame the interpretation of individual member states or the EU as a whole.Fact is that thanks to the EU law, running a website as a EU citizen became a legal mine field.And the EU fanboys right here tell you to get a lawyer.
>>102472497>ban a type of "business">scammers shut down illegal business>"bro the illegal business trade is dying"lmfao. bro your mind's gonna be blown when you discover that the sky is blue
>>102474693Learn the language of the entity you worship, shitskin
>>102474921Even if you actually went to a lawyer and asked legitimate questions, they couldn't tell you too much because the GDPR is just fucking vague. "Legitimate interest" my ass.
>>102474921I agree with you, it's beyond a pathetic shitshow but it's nothing new.
>>102474903>No, it's Austrian law about how they deal with their courts.Do you have any suggestion on how to prove that you did not have more data than you handed out, once a complaint comes in?What does the magic godlike EU say about this?How does the EU want those complaints to be handled?Should we just roll a dice to decide whether the website owner or the complaining user is right?
>>102474937You must have wanted to address that to someone else, I suppose. I fucking hate the EU, but you were still talking out of your ass.
>>102474951>Do you have any suggestion on how to prove that you did not have more data than you handed out, once a complaint comes in?No, that's why I said you should keep data in >>102474471. You simply give out all data you have. >What does the magic godlike EU say about this?Again, Austrian law. >How does the EU want those complaints to be handled?By simply stating what data you have saved. >Should we just roll a dice to decide whether the website owner or the complaining user is right?Would probably get you closer to being correct
>>102474993You didn't answer the question.How to deal with complaints a year from now without storing all the data?
>>102474443>In the EU, you are living in a dichotomy where you are simultaneously not allowed to store data but are required by law to store data.The GDPR allows you to process personal data as long as doing so is needed to fullfil legal obligations under law. Therefore, a business is by definition allowed to process and store the data the law calls for to prove that indeed; they handled data requests adequately.Which doesn't mean you have to keep all that data around, like numbskulls such as >>102474723 claim.Because you legally aren't required to keep logs of the data ITSELF. You're only required to keep logs of the type of data transactions and which types of personal data they involve - i.e. you're keeping stored copies of the METADATA that proves you didn't process anything else (whatever that might've been) pertaining to a certain person, other than what you already sent them. (Which can be correlated through timestamps or generated correlation IDs in the transaction metadata.)You're legally required to do that amount of bookkeeping anyway, on ALL data-transactions involving personal data that flow through your business, because the appointed authorities can request you to produce those registries on the spot without undue delay. Not being able to do so, e.g. because you didn't keep records and first will have to put them together, is already a violation of the law.>>102474786>Do you guys even know how EU law works? It gets implemented in local laws.The GDPR is a Regulation. Directives have to be implemented in local member state law. Regulations are direct law in the entire European Union.
>>102475199Metadata is personal data covered by the GDPR.So yes, it does actually force you to store data for a year, that the GDPR doesn't want you to store without user permission.
>>102475174>How to deal with complaints a year from now without storing all the data?Don't be Austrian or talk to an Austrian lawyer. Also I already told you to keep the data. If you get a request to delete it and then get sued for it simply show the request for deletion.
>>102475240>Don't be Austrianok, so how do other countries deal with that?
>>102472497how is this a bad thing?
>>102475199This guy doesn't even know what kind of data the GDPR covers, but pulls whole articles out of his ass about it.
>>102475249>ok, so how do other countries deal with that?By not having laws that require you keep data in case you get sued
>>102474546The GDPR doesn't magically force companies to show annoying popup windows.They could also default to not sucking up your data for profiling and targeted advertising purposes, and leaving just a small link in their site footer that end-users willing to subject themselves to that type of thing, could use to opt in to it.
>>102475279They do not implement the right to complain?
>>102475282People got sued based on the GDPR without ever sucking up any data.The German Google Font cases come to mind.
>>102475290You have a right, but >>102474563>you can not be forced to retain data UNLESS you are already obligated to do so for other legal purposes.I would prefer not having to repeat myself.
my biggest problem with the GDPR is it's just more legal lawyer jewry noise. retards say, "um acktually" when in reality no one really knows what is and isn't ok. I still see sites do the whole, "opt-out" pattern even though it's strictly illegal.
it's a humiliation ritual but also America should be carpet bombed, with a solid wall of nuclear fire from Sacramento to San Diego and the Bay Area cauterized down to the bedrock in particular
>>102475199The GDPR is the exact opposite of what you think it is.In example:>Someone writes to someone else: "I want to lick Von der Layens pussy and make her squir over my face"Is totally fine, no allowance of the user needed, you can store this for 100 years if you want to.But:>IP 123.123.123.123 requested /favicon.ico at 2024.09.20 18:00 UTCTHIS IS NOT.Because the user is identifiable. The IP and time is enough information to find out the real person behind it. Therefor it is subject of the GDPR.
>>102475282>duuuuuuuude just make ads opt-in lmaooooooooThis is completely unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with putting ads on websites for normalfags. I would rather publish a cool web service or apps with some ad banners than not publish any at all. People who know how to block them will block them, and that's literally how it should be. People don't actually care about their privacy, they have Facebook open while browsing your GDPR-cucked website.
>>102475321>UNLESS you are already obligated to do so for other legal purposesAnd the right to complain forces you to store data. It is that very legal purpose.What is so hard to understand about that?Are you a bot?
>>102475381>And the right to complain forces you to store data. It is that very legal purpose.No, it doesn't. A legal purpose which would force you to keep data would be an undergoing investigation and you already being contacted by the police. >What is so hard to understand about that?It's literally not the case. It helps you in defending yourself, but it's simply not the case.
>>102475407so how are you able to deal with a complaint without having the data?
>>102474533Yeah, but Austria is fucking retarded
>>102475440so how are you able to deal with a complaint without having the data?
>>102475424>so how are you able to deal with a complaint without having the data?Again, this is why keeping the data helps. You are not forced to. If you don't have the data and someone claims you had data that you weren't supposed to have that someone needs to prove it.
>>102475454>helpsSo it's optional and not needed to handle a complaint.So how are you able to deal with a complaint without having the data?
>>102475463>So it's optional and not needed to handle a complaint.You are not forced to keep the data unless for OTHER legal purposes. >So how are you able to deal with a complaint without having the data?Innocent until proven guilty
>>102475454>that someone needs to prove itThat would be retarded and make the whole law worthless.So everybody can send you anything and just claim:>well, you prove that i have more :^)And when he actually goes to court for it, you simply delete it and say>haha, lool, nothing is here, so we will never know :^)The EU can't possible be as retarded as you claim.
>>102475236>Metadata is personal data covered by the GDPR.If you only keep data around that corresponds to a correlation ID that otherwise can no longer be reassociated to a natural person because you deleted everything else - then it's pseudonymized. The GDPR actually has legislative articles wrt pseudonymization as well.Pseudonymized metadata about personal data such as the category of personal data involved, the time at which they are processed, etc. COULD still be personal data in large bulk, where they contribute to reidentification of a natural person through e.g. correlation. You're not entirely wrong about that part. But it's not personal data by its very definition. Keep in mind that the GDPR states that it's also only to be considered personal data where some party could and would REASONABLY expend the effort to perform the reconstructive work that would allow it to reestablish a link to the identity of the data subject involved. Very often that would be deemed not the case.Also, aside from the legal aspects of having to keep the data around (which is perfectly legal because the need to keep data around for legal obligations is one of the six possible grounds for lawful processing) - having to only keep transactional metadata around makes for a whole lot less data than would the case with full exhaustive copies of the data itself. So the volume of it is much more managable as well. It's far less of a doomsday situation than >>102474723 makes it out to be.
>>102475519>That would be retarded and make the whole law worthless.No, that's how justice systems work. You are innocent until proven guilty. >And when he actually goes to court for it, you simply delete it and sayTampering and destruction of evidence is a quick way to not only be considered guilty pretty much immediately but also face way more charges. >The EU can't possible be as retarded as you claim.The real retard are you since you don't even understand the basics of any modern judicial system. Please stop embarrassing yourself and just hire a lawyer.
>>102475306Because they used a third party service (namely Google's CDN) that leaked personal data, without there being a proper legally valid processing agreement contracting Google as a subprocessor for that data with limitations on how they would be allowed to use it.If your service, like your website, makes use of third party services - then it's still YOUR service that's seen as in-the-lead and YOU are the responsible data controller in that case. Meaning it falls to YOU to get your contracts to your providers in order to ensure that shit is safeguarded.If you can't or don't know how to; then you either contract someone who does to handle it for you, or you simply don't use those services to begin with.
>>102475353Also usernames are not identifiable information, UNLESS the user writes somewhere>"this username is me, i am X Y living in Z"Or there is any other way to get from the username to the real person.This means storing:>user i_love_vonderlayen wrote to junker_rules: "I want to have steaming hot sex with you"is fine.And when the user i_love_vonderlayen requests deletion of his data, you only have to delete the identifiable data.So you delete all entries like:>IP 123.123.123.123 logged in as i_love_vonderlayenMaking sure that the username can't be resolved to the real person, and its fine.All the user data can be kept. All messages of the user can be kept.HOWEVER since you have to store metadata for DSA and other stupid EU laws, this is a purely theoretical scenario.
>>102475359You can show non-personalized ads, duh.Many websites used to do this and still do.If an asshole site owner chooses to track my visits and sell my data, GDPR forces him to tell me up front that he is an asshole.
>>102475597>that leaked personal dataIt didn't.It requested fonts from CDN servers within the EU that do not store cookies and don't even log IPs.
>>102475610Wrong.The GDPR is has absolutely nothing to do with selling data.
>>102475598Nope, a user setting his username as PII is not the fault of the service. Deletion of username should still be granted. Not because of some law, it's just really gay.
>>102475640Did you even read it?> ‘processing’ means any operation ... such as disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available ...https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
>>102475597>that leaked personal dataNope it didn't which is why the cases got dismissed and the people behind it (including the lawyer) are currently getting sued.
>>102475668If you think that every website that is required to show you a cookie banner is selling your data, then you are simply a retard and never even read a single one of those banners.
>>102475359Don't make ads opt-in. Make ad personalization opt-in. For users that don't opt-in to that; simply show ads related to interest-areas segmented on the content being viewed. And maybe with some persuasive messaging you can get them to opt-in because ads will be more tailored to them specifically, rather than to the content they're viewing.Multiple companies have experimented with this, and found that ad revenue was able to be maintained. In those cases it couldn't, many cases were also caused by ad providers from the shady ad-tech conglomorates interfering. Either directly or through spreading FUD wrt the effectiveness of non-targeted ads vs targeted ads.Actual marketeers with decades of experience know that targeted ads, though generating more impressions, don't actually increase conversion over other, more well-selected and manually curated ad-campaigns, including placement next to news articles that have correlated interest areas.Ad-tech serves only one actual interest; ad-tech itself.
>>102475695> The GDPR is has absolutely nothing to do with selling data.> Wait, actually it has everything to do with selling data, but ackshually those assholes are not selling your dataYou aren't an interesting interlocutor.
>>102475687>the cases got dismissedIn Germany they didn't. They actually had a legit finished ruling fining little website owners for it.That is what triggered a wave of lawyers to earn money by sending cease and desist letters to every single little German run website that uses them, demanding money.When a lawyer tried that in Austria however, the affected people joined forces to run against him. The lawyer got threatened so much that he never went to court for it. They went to his home and slit up the tires of his car and they followed him and terrorized him.So it didn't get dismissed, it was basically a lynching.The people themselves made sure that there is no financial incentive to do that scam.
>>102475617>>102475687Well then, if those cases actually got dismissed - i.e. the court itself told the plaintiffs to take a hike - then I'd say the law actually works, doesn't it?Things were verified; it turned out the service actually COULDN'T have been processing personal data; so no need for a processing agreement; so the data controllers behind the websites in questions didn't do anything wrong. Case closed. Heck - if the term 'dismissal' is correct here, then case never actually fucking OPENED to begin with ...
>>102475758>>102475797Here the German ruling.https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-2022-3-o-1749320/It even says that if the website doesn't stop using Google Fonts, they have to pay 250.000 € or alternatively go to jail for 6 months.
>>102475845And nobody got sued yet for embedding Youtube or Google Maps. Both of which actually track you and collect your data.But a little private blog using fonts from a server in Europe that doesn't even store cookies or log IPs?That's real shit! Stop it or go to jail you filthy criminal!
>>102475709But I already have to have a cookie warning because I want users to be able to register, why not just go for targeted ads if those earn more?GDPR isn't only about advertising, I'm not even allowed to store a fucking email address, and IP address, geographical location data, and user-generated content without navigating through a quagmire of legal trouble.
>>102475879You don't run a web server without having server logs.
>>102476101>But I already have to have a cookie warning because I want users to be able to registerFunctional cookies such as those used to track active login session are exempt from needing notice. Also, cookies aren't a topic of the GDPR per-say, but of the ePrivacy Regulation -- or rather the myriad of present-day implementation in member state law of its predecessor, which was a Directive rather than a Regulation.
>>102472497>TechnologyIt's only hurting marketing, not real technology.
Everything is so insanely vague and open to interpretation.If they really wanted, they could technically come after you, a private citizen, for having screenshots of other people's deleted tweets on your phone, or old spreadsheets with first and last name columns on your computer.
>>102479668>t. Never read a single word of the GDPR
