But if it was, it most likely would be enough anyway if the salt isn't stored anywhere. An irreversible hash of data is enough anonymization
But if it was, it most likely would be enough anyway if the salt isn't stored anywhere. An irreversible hash of data is enough anonymization
Where the definition of personal data is:
"(1) 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
So if the listed information isn't PII (an IP address however is PII) then it would become PII if you can identify a unique visitor with it.
Am I wrong here? It sounds to me that this hash fits the definition of Art. 4
Privacy improvements using crypto is somewhat marketing, but here the numbers show that they have a really good product, an impressive revenue model and a good marketing message so I think that's what we should look at.
Technically, at the end of the day, they store utm_source, they store the IP address (just in an encoded form with a salt + day added to it).
-> So yeah, you can be tracked, but in theory you will appear under a pseudonymised hash of your IP+UA.
A unique identifier which let's them track a user everywhere isn't either if there is no way to match this id to a real name etc
They will likely still need to disclose this tracking (ianal), but the identifier used to track the visits isn't PII
the natural person is the link to a real name. it only becomes PII if its somehow possible to link a real name or similar to this identifier. If this is impossible, it will never be PII, even if it identifies a single individual.
I don't think I am wrong here. But I am willing to admit when I am wrong, where is my mistake?
[0]https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/ [1]https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/?cn-reloaded=1
its not PII as long as its impossible to link it back to a unique identification from the real world such as a name, social security number or similar.
so my previous blanket statement of IP addresses not being PII is slightly exaggerated, they can be, but they rarely are.
most people access the internet either with dynamic ip addresses or from a corporations internet providers. people that have a static ip address on a private landline and without a NAT are rare, which is why generally speaking, IP addresses aren't PII.
it does become PII if the person in question has a static ip address and is the only person using this connection.
If it was, ycombinator would have to adhere to much more stringent regulation wrt them.
I can understand your point and it was nice to entertain this conversation with you. I can't see how to convince you from my view and I don't see how you could convince me of yours. But I will keep you arguments in mind and will look for some more information regarding to it. Thank you!
GDPR handles all kinds of data related to a person, so yes: a username is personal data wrt GDPR
personally identifiable information (PII) on the other hand is only a subset of data handled by the general data protection regulation (GDPR)
This might clear that up https://techgdpr.com/blog/difference-between-pii-and-persona...