discoursism

Go ahead and have a glance at it. What would you remove from it that wouldn't cause a significant gap?

Some example clauses:

> For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

(They have to put this. If they didn't, they would get sued by someone who shared a video and then was mad that other people could see it.)

> Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

>

> You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

(Not exactly dense legalese. It is good to ban impersonation, and it is right that they should include such a ban in their terms.)

> We’ll notify you before we make changes to these terms and give you the opportunity to review and comment on the revised terms before continuing to use our Services.

(Seems reasonable to me. Many years ago, people used to complain that the terms changed without notice, so FB committed to not doing that any more.)

I don't know. This whole "terms of service are impossible to read except by a lawyer" meme just doesn't hold water for me.

The author is a history professor, not an engineer, and it shows with the faffery about metonyms of ecological development in South Florida near the end. If the issue here was with the ABC methodology (as opposed to a misapplication of it), we'll soon learn, but I doubt it. In the mean time, the only person who stands to gain from this FUD is the author.

FWIW I would be worried about relying on such a system! But based on the description it seems helpful. What does it do about derivative data that doesn't directly contain any PII?

We've had two years to work on this. At my company, we've had entire teams spending significant fractions of their time over the last year prepping. As a result, we'll be ready when the switch flips.

Life is risk. I contend that if you make a good faith effort to comply with this law (i.e. consult with a lawyer, once, to develop those eight documents you mentioned in another part of this thread) and generally practice good private information hygiene (wipe out old data, don't log private info, don't retain logs or emails too long, etc.), you're probably going to be fine. This is probably not going to be in the "inner loop" of risks your small business faces.

In every regulation, there are winners and losers. Some of the losers didn't do anything wrong, but are just losing because that's the nature of designing laws that factor in disparate interests. At this point, it's the law, and your only choice is how you're going to handle it. And my contention is that, if your small business is receiving letters like this with any regularity, calling a lawyer and spending half a day on it each time is not among the reasonable spectrum of risk-mitigating responses.

/shrug It's your money. You could do that, or you could even light it on fire if you wish. It's no skin off my back. If your company is profitable enough to eat this self-imposed overhead, then its owners will just make less money. If it's not, then leaner competitors will replace it. I'm fine with either outcome.

You attach an owner id to every record, and make sure all your systems can dump all information they store according to owner id. To the extent existing systems don't, you fix them.

Here is a listing of everything you have a right to know about our company and processes under GDPR:

<huge info dump>

Here is all of the personal data we have about you:

<very long CSV file>

Ideally, the most time-consuming part of responding, after the first such letter, will be verifying the user's identity.

Would you rather get to know someone through many conversations and shared experiences, or by reading a (hypothetical, futuristic) brain scan? And so with the world.

If a single ship could wipe out a whole enemy fleet via ramming in terrestrial naval battles, every real-world naval battle would be fought by ramming. Also we wouldn't have naval fleets, nor probably naval battles at all. The real reason we don't fight by ramming is that, at best, you get a 1:1 trade, and normally not even that much.

So, this explanation doesn't hold water for me.

All the inconsistencies you mentioned earlier are for sure cases where you have to suspend disbelief, but (most of them) at least seem internally consistent. That is, they don't reconcile well against reality, but they don't contradict other things we see in the story. I don't feel the same way about the end of the battle in TLJ.

Maybe it's just that the original trilogy slipped in to me before I got old enough to where I think about such things. Maybe it is a double standard. But I don't feel like it is. And that's all I have to go on.

But, I don't begrudge you enjoying the movie! Wish I felt the same.

    NewServer(..., Config{})

That's my expectation.

? I mean it may be true that they will some day go out of business. In fact it's all but certain. But I don't think you could really say it's because of effect that is visible today.