Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case they’re literally above the law.
Actually, there is a solution: Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too.
If he is not "in the Union" and the processor or controller processing his data is not "established in the Union" then GDPR does not apply. See Article 3 [1] for details.
Because of that, a lot of folks enter my email address as theirs; often accidentally (they forget the numbers, afterwards, or somesuch).
One lady made donations to her local ASPCA, and used my email address.
They sold me to some of the craziest, most radical-left organizations on earth.
I get hundreds of emails, every day, from these outfits. Some, are absolutely barking mad. Many, are fake emails from politicians.
Even I can't stomach some of the crazy in these emails, and I lean left[ish] (I'm quite centrist, which means leftists think I'm MAGA, and rightists think I'm commie).
Needless to say, unsubs only make it worse.
All because one lady goofed, when entering her email, for a local animal assistance org.
Any idea how GDPR works for EU citizens who reside in the USA?
E.g., suppose I want Facebook to forget about me, but I'm using a U.S.-based ISP to tell them that. Does Facebook have any legal justification for rejecting my request?
Note that data generated only from your time in the US about your activities when in the US probably can still remain.
It doesn't. The cases it applies to are given in Article 3 [1]. It applies to these cases:
• Processing of personal data by entities that are "established in the Union", regardless of where the processing takes place.
• Processing of personal data of "data subjects who are in the Union" by entities not "established in the Union" if it is related to those entities offering goods and services to data subjects "in the Union" or those entities are monitoring behavior of those data subjects that takes place "in the Union".
• Processing of personal data by an entity not "established in the Union" is they are somewhere where Member State law applies "by virtue of public international law". (Anyone happen to have a list of such places?).
GDPR does not even mention "citizens". Every place it talks about data subjects it uses "in the Union".
Note that this works both ways. People who are not EU citizens are covered if they are "in the Union".
One issue that corporations should be concerned about, is if they contract a dialer company to initiate their calls, and that company moonlights to scammers, they get blocked, so the legit corporation gets blocked for being a scammer.
https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts
The UK government sent a white paper to every household with their opinion on it. If there wasn't a special case for this, many households wouldn't have received this. these things can be abused, but paraphrasing patio11 "the optimal amount of fraud(/abuse) is non-zero" [0]. The argument for this applies in this case to.
[0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
Anyone with the mentality ‘this junk mail is more important that your junk mail sticker’ can go fuck themselves - similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape.
These people said they didn't care, and they're literally in the news saying "why didn't anyone tell me?"
> similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape.
There's stretching an analogy, and there's comparing junk mail to rape. This is a first for me.
Then they should either read the news or remove their no junk mail sticker? Attempting to suggest that political mail would have swayed brexit is stretching the analogy pretty thin, too.
This is an important point, because the exemption of political activity is due to the protections of political speech. Imagine if it were not this way, the party in power could simply fine or even arrest their opponents for trying talk to people over the phone. This happens every day in nondemocratic countries. This protection should not extend to AI though. AI doesn't vote. AI doesn't have a voice in a democracy. So allowing AI to benefit from this exemption should not be permitted. I tolerate PEOPLE calling me, because I am a voter and they are voters and we must all discuss the direction our laws should go or who our representatives should be (when we have time). But AI should have no place in the political process. Not for robocalls, not for choosing representatives, and especially not for lawmaking.
Yeah, that would never happen in a democratic country…
I also don't want random people to be able to call me and yell at me about politics.
Enabling phone spam is in no way required for a functioning political system (not that we have one of those.)
Phone spam doesn't inform people on issues, doesn't create meaningful debate on issues, and has no value in strengthening democracy.
Every single candidate that sends me spam loses my vote permanently.
Calling your neighbour is different to being paid to text or call thousands of people daily.