>Because you don't need to.
But GDPR indeed requires it for many kinds of decisionmaking, no?
27 karma · joined May 11, 2022
But GDPR indeed requires it for many kinds of decisionmaking, no?
>Yes, individuals should not be subject to a decision that is based solely on automated processing (such as algorithms) and that is legally binding or which significantly affects them.
I suppose being banned from Uber can very well be something that significantly affects you, especially if you live in a city where it's the primary form of taxi-like transport.
How would it be ridiculous? A water leak in your flat is causing damage to the flat below yours, it's your duty to address this. If you do not address this, someone will in fact go to court and take control of your flat.
This is something that happens all the time in cases where compliance with specific performance orders seems unlikely.
Essential safety equipment while driving in the cold.
> This is not a common feature in Europe, except in EVs.
It's a common feature in fancy cars and has been so for ages. Most EVs definitely fall into the fancy car category.
Just like people have been doing with ICE cars for literally decades? This has been super common since at least the 80s and probably even earlier, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Standhei...
It's called a block heater, it's normal for most parking spaces in cold countries to have sockets for these.
Fixed for EU. End result is same, ICE car warm.
Surely pretty much any equivalent gas car remote cabin heating too, it's a very common feature.
>FIFA competitions are separated for men and women. This separation must be safeguarded and protected.
I messed up here by trusting the first results on google while searching "can women play in the world cup" which brought up a bunch of Quora results saying that they can. I was a bit too eager to believe them because this is a thing in many other sports.
You'll have a very hard time finding any women playing at this level though.
US could just drop the records for those.
This has been a common feature for like ... idk, 20 years? I think even the 80s W214 had this option, although that used a separate burner system instead of batteries.
What? Obviously they could. ICANN is subject to US law.
This is a completely normal measure, simply taking down a domain is not nearly as effective anti-malware measure than sinkholing it. A sinkhole could in some cases uninstall the malware from affected computers, or at least identify their IP-addresses for notification purposes.
>Microsoft is not the law and they have no special legal status.
Exactly.
>If a domain is being used for cybercrime it's one thing, it doesn't mean any random party should get to walk into court, complain about it, and then offer to "solve" the issue by randomly appointing itself DNS provider
Microsoft is not a random party, it's a party whose business is directly affected by these illegal malware campaigns and has been repeatedly held to have standing in these cases.
>The result I might add was a massive outage for a massive number of innocent no-ip.org users.
Turns out that possibly most no-ip users were malicious https://umbrella.cisco.com/blog/on-the-trail-of-malicious-dy...
Perhaps the water leak was caused by someone else, but it's still in your apartment.
>I do feel like the only way this request was granted was due to total ignorance on the part of the court of anything about how the internet works.
This is absurd. The court ideologically disagrees with you about how the internet should work, not about how the internet works. This does not suggest that the court is ignorant of anything.
It makes perfect sense to examine the positives and negatives, in this case I'd suggest that the negatives of allowing anyone to observe unencrypted radio transmissions far exceed the positives. Do you not think so? If yes, why?
This isn't really a hypothetical question, there are actually places which do allow this and places which do not.
Yes, there are a plenty of precedents in the usual sense of the word. Such as this case, https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-851
If you're going to argue (like _djo_) that this is not a precedent because it concerns a different type of a vehicle, you're entering into some rather absurd territory.
We have a clear example showing that simply storing pictures of car license plates by a toll road operator was a GDPR violation. Aircraft tail numbers are functionally exactly the same as car license plates.
The GDPR does not at any point discuss vehicles, from a GDPR perspective it makes no difference if the vehicle is a car, bicycle or your personal submarine. Or if there's a vehicle at all! GDPR concerns all PII for an extremely broad definition of PII.
Tracking locations of personal aircraft without consent is a GDPR violation, there really couldn't be a more obvious example of one.
PS. GDPR places the onus on the data controller to prove what they're doing is legal, not the other way around. You are guilty unless proven innocent. The reasonable question is to ask "Is there a precedent for this being legal?".
The answer to that is probably not, because the European flightradar24.com does have a privacy policy anywhere. This alone is blatantly illegal, but the reason they don't have one is almost certainly that their business is fundamentally not legal in Europe.
If what flighradar24.com and adsbexchange.com are doing was legal, they would have a privacy policy explaining the legal basis for their data collection. It's fundamentally impossible for their business to be GDPR compliant without one.
Do you genuinely believe that you being allowed to spy on to your neighbours unencrypted baby monitor is a good thing that's helpful for society at large?
For example, in Finland this is legislated as follows:
Section 37 – Confidentiality of radiocommunications
(1) Radiocommunication is confidential and may be received only by those for whom it is intended. (46/2005)
(2) Whoever receives or otherwise has information on a confidential radio transmission not intended for him/her must not wrongfully disclose it or make use of the knowledge of the contents or existence of the transmission.
(3) The following are not considered to be confidential radiocommunications:
...1) initial transmissions of television and radio programmes;
...2) emergency calls;
...3) radiocommunications conducted using a public calling channel;
...4) the amateur service;
...5) shortwave radiocommunications in the 27 MHz frequency band; or any other radiocommunication intended for general reception. (46/2005)
The penalty for violating this law is a court-determined fine.
Do you think that this law is overall a net-positive or a net-negative for society? What good things come from you being able to listen to arbitrary transmissions intended for someone else?
You're the one arguing that there's some special exemption for aircraft, but have done nothing to substantiate that claim.
Besides, with the GDPR it works the opposite way. You have to justify why your data processing is legal, not the other way around.
And for fucks sake, neither of Flightradar24 or ADSBExchange even offer a GDPR-compliant privacy policy. ADSBexchange does not offer one at all.
Some people still use unencrypted wifi networks, is their traffic "public"?
What about baby monitors? Do you think that unencrypted baby monitor traffic is "public" in any reasonable sense of the term?
Are you joking? Lots of EU countries have had this, and still do.
For example in Finland, https://www.traficom.fi/en/services/vehicle-data-and-tax-pay...
In Sweden you can text the cars registration plate to 72503 and get the cars owners info.
In Norway you can look up car owners by registration plate or VIN https://www.vegvesen.no/en/dinside/kjoretoy/finn-eier-og-kjo...
In Portugal anyone can request the registration certificate from the IRN, that contains the owners information.
The governments aren't bound by GDPR and can totally do this, but as a private party it would generally be illegal for you to scrape this data.
>I’ve seen multiple attempts to make the same argument you are by disgruntled private aircraft owners every now and then. None have succeeded in any official venue.
Same is true of literally all GDPR violations, we've only just introduced these laws and catching up on the enforcement backlog will take decades.
Not only that, but most governments are doing a very shit job funding the enforcement authorities.
The obvious solution will be to allow impacted individuals to litigate GDPR violations by themselves.
If not, why would we just not accept that GDPR treats aircraft exactly how it treats everything else? The law, as written, clearly offers no specific coverage or exemption for any types of vehicles.
Are there people who drive in Europe without Waze? Not sure I've met any.
Elon in fact has a lot to do with the apparatus of GDPR enforcement.
What? Where am I defending Musk? You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the clown. I haven't even mentioned the guy!
Unlike you, I don't give a shit about the guy. I'm just an European aircraft owner who's not a fan of these websites.
>There is no PII in these transmissions.
>To “make a case” for something means to provide a persuasive argument for it. If I had meant pursuing a lawsuit I’d have said so.
Are you kidding? Mere pictures of license plates associated with timestamps have been found to be covered by GDPR, perfectly analogous to what's being discussed here.
http://enforcementtracker.com/ETid-851
Instead of car license plates, we have tail numbers and ICAO addresses. That's the only difference.