As someone who runs dozens of side-projects with thousands of users, I didn't even have to change anything. All it took was to not be shitty to begin with.
Not "hire", "designate". The data protection officer is just a role that someone in the company takes on, it does't have to be their only role.
Have you learned anything interesting from that?
> If I say no, they have to refrain from using it, they can't just say "well tough luck, we have it now".
Have you been doing that?
> If I give my email for a contest, they can't keep spamming me with crap.
That was already a thing in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
> If I tell them to forget I exist, they have to do it.
That could be useful, I suppose. Although to be honest, it's likely to be used to erase bad behavior that we'd rather have public much more than any legitimate privacy concern, i'd guess.
No, the few I asked turned out to have as much data as I shared, which is almost nothing.
> Have you been doing that?
Yep.
> That was already a thing in the US:
Good to know.
> it's likely to be used to erase bad behavior that we'd rather have public much more than any legitimate privacy concern, i'd guess.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I also don't agree that people's bad behaviour should remain public forever.
Oh, and I understand that some don't realize it, but some of us out here running and working for companies affected by these rulings are people too. I wish everyone would stop pretending who they hoped would be affected and see who actually are so we can move from politics to reality.
And as an individual consumer, I'm comfortable in saying that it is a really not great law for me (ie, YMMV). It's impeded some of the content I access and for many sites it's like having cookie notices on steroids. It's a pain in the arse.