Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Max and 99

GDPR and how it affects Geocaching

Recommended Posts

Yesterday I spent a lot of time trying to find a thread I was sure I had read and responded to, only to realize much later that the entire thread was deleted when the OP deleted their post. That got me thinking (this is where the can of worms arrives):  how else will the GDPR affect online geocaching?

 

Just wondering, for example:

1.  Can HQ (and the CO) no longer lock logs?  (this would prevent a poster from using Right of Erasure). Or, they just have to contact HQ and have their log deleted?

2. Does this mean someone who decided after they sign a physical log that they don't want their name on it can then take the physical log (thus erasing their data on it). Yeah, I know, HIGHLY unlikely, I'm just wondering about possible situations.

 

I am not complaining. I am not criticizing anyone's decisions, just wondering how else the activity might be affected.

 

Update: Add me to the list of those who have poofed away an entire thread.

 

 

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post

IANAL, but on another forum, the idea that the GDPR requires forums to allow users to delete posts was discussed. One person pointed to the following section of Your GDPR questions answered:

Quote

Do I need to delete all the posts by a member if they ask me to?
We have many large clients in the EU with really impressive and expensive legal teams and they are all unanimous in telling us that there is no requirement to delete content when deleting a user's personal information. The analogy often given is with email: once someone sends you an email you are not obligated to delete that. The same is true with content posted by a user: once they post that content it's no longer "owned" by them and is now out in public.

Ultimately, the decision is yours but do not feel that you have to delete their content. This is not a GDPR requirement.

 

So, does the GDPR really require that users be able to delete their posts at will? Who knows. Groundspeak's lawyers apparently think so. And to be fair, that is the safe "We don't want GDPR lawsuits from people in the EU" course of action.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah it seems like there'd be a fine line between personal info (which is posted publicly) and forum posts (also posted publicly) IF that phrase relevant "once they post that content it's no longer "owned" by them and is now out in public".  The user might consider posts just as much "personal information" as profile content. So there's got to be some fine print when it comes to contexts like discussion forums, and a distinction between "profile" content and other content... hm.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah it seems like there'd be a fine line between personal info (which is posted publicly) and forum posts (also posted publicly) IF that phrase relevant "once they post that content it's no longer "owned" by them and is now out in public".  The user might consider posts just as much "personal information" as profile content. So there's got to be some fine print when it comes to contexts like discussion forums, and a distinction between "profile" content and other content... hm.

Thank you both for your helpful responses!

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post

1) I didn't know that logs were currently locked such that cachers can't delete their own logs.  If so, then I think HQ should still be able to lock logs, but would have to delete those locked logs if the cacher submitted a request. Although I'm not sure if that's really how GDPR works.

2) I don't think someone should be able to remove the physical log. They could go back and redact their entry, like using a marker or pen to cover up their name/date, but if they remove the entire physical log then they are affecting other people's "personal data" as well - unless their entry is on its own page and they can just tear that page out without affecting any other signatures.

 

---------------------

I wonder if websites, that don't want to deal with the legal issues of GDPR and/or don't have legal resources to comfortably understand the regulations would just block service to users from the EU.  It's probably impractical to block EU folks from visiting their website, but at least block EU folks from creating user accounts.  Now, I'm not saying that would happen at geocaching.com, since a the EU is a huge user base - but it does make me wonder about the occasional posts that say Groundspeak isn't doing anything that someone else couldn't easily replicate with a competitive site. Someone wanting to create a competing site would have to learn and abide by the GDPR regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I wonder if websites, that don't want to deal with the legal issues of GDPR and/or don't have legal resources to comfortably understand the regulations would just block service to users from the EU.  It's probably impractical to block EU folks from visiting their website, but at least block EU folks from creating user accounts.  Now, I'm not saying that would happen at geocaching.com, since a the EU is a huge user base - but it does make me wonder about the occasional posts that say Groundspeak isn't doing anything that someone else couldn't easily replicate with a competitive site. Someone wanting to create a competing site would have to learn and abide by the GDPR regulations.

 

Some sites are blocking all EU users from access - I tried to access some small US newspaper site yesterday and it totally refused me access.

 

It's partly an over-reaction to GDPR, which I'm finding is being used in a variety of hilarious ways and is very poorly understood - even by the people who are supposed to be implementing it. It's also partly laziness in terms of not allowing users to opt out of cookies and the like. It's also being used incredibly poorly by a whole range of institutions to allow them to implement a range of "policies" which favour them rather than the user, which is the opposite of the intention of GDPR as far as I can see.

 

Groundspeak seems to be adopting a generally sensible approach to the issue on the whole as far as I can see. I can see how opting to allow users to delete threads they start on the forums isn't ideal, but it seems a pragmatic approach to the issue - thread starters are, perhaps, more likely to share information that they may later wish they had not for example.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Some sites are blocking all EU users from access - I tried to access some small US newspaper site yesterday and it totally refused me access.

Did the site show a message saying that EU was the reason you were blocked?  Assuming the identification is based on IP address, then I suppose it's possible to get around that with spoofed IP's.

Just wondering if it was really EU-specific, because I find that interesting. But I have been blocked from some newspaper websites by a "soft paywall", where they don't show me anything because I have ad blockers running, but then they do show me the website content after I whitelist their site.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

It's also being used incredibly poorly by a whole range of institutions to allow them to implement a range of "policies" which favour them rather than the user, which is the opposite of the intention of GDPR as far as I can see.

Not too surprising, as it's not unusual that the outcomes of policies do not match the intentions of those policies. Policy writers need to anticipate the possible outcomes and try to craft their policies to address those possibilities and close any loopholes before implementation. Some of those outcomes should be obvious, but some are harder to recognize ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Did the site show a message saying that EU was the reason you were blocked?  Assuming the identification is based on IP address, then I suppose it's possible to get around that with spoofed IP's.

Yes and Yes (at least assuming it's the same small US newspaper I was trying to look at to look up the report of the "bomb" in another thread on here). I did consider going via a proxy/vpn in another country but wasn't interested enough.

 

Interestingly the URL works this morning from work which definitely uses a proxy, but a couple of geolocation sites  map that proxy to the UK so I'm not sure how the paper is deciding where in the world we are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Did the site show a message saying that EU was the reason you were blocked? 

 

 

Yes, it was on news sites here a while ago that (US) newssites were blocking EU IP's because of GDPR. This was mainly because they were caught by surprise when GDPR went into effect and they weren't sure how to act.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

1.  Can HQ (and the CO) no longer lock logs?  (this would prevent a poster from using Right of Erasure). Or, they just have to contact HQ and have their log deleted?

I don't think COs have ever had the ability to prevent logs being deleted on their caches. I've seen cases in the past when GCHQ deleted logs on locked caches on request, and I expect that would be the case if someone made such a request using the magic word please GDPR.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I don't think COs have ever had the ability to prevent logs being deleted on their caches. I've seen cases in the past when GCHQ deleted logs on locked caches on request, and I expect that would be the case if someone made such a request using the magic word please GDPR.

I'm sure you are all right about that. The CO locking the log probably only prevents the log from being edited. 

Thanks for clarifying (I think more than one of you have stated this). 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Yes, it was on news sites here a while ago that (US) newssites were blocking EU IP's because of GDPR. This was mainly because they were caught by surprise when GDPR went into effect and they weren't sure how to act.

Look at it from the perspective of a US-based business.

 

What's the upside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? You're unlikely to get additional customers, so the upside is fairly nebulous. Perhaps EU visitors will refer US visitors who might actually become customers. Perhaps not.

 

What's the downside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? Apparently, even though your business isn't in the EU, their GDPR law (whatever that is) allows their citizens to sue you.

 

It seems a fairly reasonable decision to just avoid the EU entanglement entirely.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, niraD said:

Look at it from the perspective of a US-based business.

 

What's the upside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? You're unlikely to get additional customers, so the upside is fairly nebulous. Perhaps EU visitors will refer US visitors who might actually become customers. Perhaps not.

 

What's the downside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? Apparently, even though your business isn't in the EU, their GDPR law (whatever that is) allows their citizens to sue you.

 

It seems a fairly reasonable decision to just avoid the EU entanglement entirely.

 

They put a website up, that means it can be viewed worldwide. If they see no upside in EU visitors (isn't a newswebsite mostly about generating ad-income?) they might just as well block all non-US visitors, which they don't. So they must see an advantage is global coverage. What they now did was even blocking Americans abroad (in Europe) just because they didn't understand GDPR. Most are now understanding that GDPR is about the protection of PERSONAL data, if none is collected there's no problem.

I run a few (very small) sites and had no problem being compliant within 15 minutes and I do collect personal data (people can register).  Even for our radioclub's website (register to access the forum) GDPR compliance was easily done. Just to make sure, we had everyone on our mailinglist formally re-confirm they wanted to receive our mails.

 

Just read up on GDPR (since you say "whatever it is"), there are plenty of websites that explain what it is in simple terms, it's not the big monster some think it is.

You have to thank the Googles and Facebooks for GDPR, it's because of their datamining that these laws were made.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If they see no upside in EU visitors (isn't a newswebsite mostly about generating ad-income?) they might just as well block all non-US visitors, which they don't.

Other non-US visitors aren't threatening to sue them for violating their GDPR laws. The default behavior is to let people access the site. Blocking anyone requires effort. In this case, the effort was expended to address the perceived threat of GDPR-based lawsuits.

 

The coffeehouse down the street--like all the others in my state--displays signs warning me that acrylamide is formed naturally when food is cooked, and that this chemical is known to the state to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. They don't warn about other risks that are far more likely to affect their customers because no one has passed a law or threatened a lawsuit over those other risks.

 

It seems like a pretty obvious stimulus-response mechanism to me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Look at it from the perspective of a US-based business.

 

What's the upside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? You're unlikely to get additional customers, so the upside is fairly nebulous. Perhaps EU visitors will refer US visitors who might actually become customers. Perhaps not.

 

What's the downside of allowing EU IPs to access the site? Apparently, even though your business isn't in the EU, their GDPR law (whatever that is) allows their citizens to sue you.

 

It seems a fairly reasonable decision to just avoid the EU entanglement entirely.

Isn't (IP-)location based blocking a bit pointless? With proxies etc. I can virtually move myself to just about anywhere before accessing a website. There are browser plugins, which make this a one-click action whenever I want to visit a site which blocks users from the area where I live (I installed one years ago, because at that time a ton of YouTube videos were blocked in Germany).

IANAL, so I ask myself if it would make a legal difference (regarding the GDPR), if I access a website via my "real" IP (located in the EU) or a virtual one outside the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Isn't (IP-)location based blocking a bit pointless? With proxies etc. I can virtually move myself to just about anywhere before accessing a website. There are browser plugins, which make this a one-click action whenever I want to visit a site which blocks users from the area where I live (I installed one years ago, because at that time a ton of YouTube videos were blocked in Germany).

Sure. And the licensing agreements that most people scroll past and agree to are a bit pointless too. But when a lawyer says jump...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, baer2006 said:

IANAL, so I ask myself if it would make a legal difference (regarding the GDPR), if I access a website via my "real" IP (located in the EU) or a virtual one outside the EU.

 

It doesn't make a difference. GDPR is about collection of personal (identifiable) data. Your IP reveals your country and may reveal your city (although when looking up my IP I'm not in or even near that city). Your identity can only be revealed if your ISP says who had your IP at a certain time and they only do that if they get a court order. Your ISP is bound by GDPR to protect your data.

It's because of tactics used by Facebook among others that track you almost everywhere (FB pixel linked to your FB profile) that GDPR was created.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just technical clarification rather than useful to the discussion, but I'll make it anyway.

Logs are not locked. CO's cannot lock logs, CO's cannot edit other's logs.  CO's can delete images and delete logs.

Entire cache pages can be locked  by an admin account. Locked status of a cache page stops logging, editing or deletion of existing logs. Archived cache pages cannot be edited in any case.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Someone want to tell me what "GDPR" is?

Try any search engine ;)

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, palmetto said:

Just technical clarification rather than useful to the discussion, but I'll make it anyway.

Logs are not locked. CO's cannot lock logs, CO's cannot edit other's logs.  CO's can delete images and delete logs.

Entire cache pages can be locked  by an admin account. Locked status of a cache page stops logging, editing or deletion of existing logs. Archived cache pages cannot be edited in any case.

It was my understanding that in the case of a log dispute, HQ/Lackeys could lock a log so the CO couldn't delete it. Is this not accurate?

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with the GDPR is that some of the definitions are deliberately vague to allow it to apply not only to current situations, but also to unanticipated situations in the future. For example, their definition of what is "personal data" reads:

Quote

'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

 

Clear as mud, right?

 

In reality, we really won't know how the GDPR applies until it's tested in court. Once someone requests all of their forum content to be removed and the matter is heard by a court, a decision can be made as far as how the GDPR applies and then we'll all know. Until there's a legal precedent, all the companies of the world can do is guess and hope that their interpretation and implementation is good enough to avoid being penalized.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It was my understanding that in the case of a log dispute, HQ/Lackeys could lock a log so the CO couldn't delete it. Is this not accurate?

Possibly. But that would not impact on this discussion. The person who originally requested that their log be locked onto a cache page would be the same person then later asking for it to be removed.  It would be be.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

To open the can of worms a little bit more:

Technically deleted logs are not deleted... They are just marked invisible. (that why you can still see your own deleted logs if you have the correct link to it)

So GC still has a yob to do the really remove these logs (and pictures)

According to the GDPR you have to really delete all the info if the person asks for it; hiding is not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

In reality, we really won't know how the GDPR applies until it's tested in court. Once someone requests all of their forum content to be removed and the matter is heard by a court, a decision can be made as far as how the GDPR applies and then we'll all know. Until there's a legal precedent, all the companies of the world can do is guess and hope that their interpretation and implementation is good enough to avoid being penalized.

Scary. So what you're saying is that the law, implemented by the government of Europe, has an unknown effect, and, furthermore, an effect which could reach to anyone in the world regardless of whether they have any relation to anyone that's agreed to be under the authority of the government of Europe?

 

That's just wrong on so many levels. And by "wrong", I don't mean to imply your assessment of the situation is incorrect.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Scary. So what you're saying is that the law, implemented by the government of Europe, has an unknown effect, and, furthermore, an effect which could reach to anyone in the world regardless of whether they have any relation to anyone that's agreed to be under the authority of the government of Europe?

 

 

The moment you collect data on EU citizens you need to comply to GDPR. BTW, that's a good thing. In the mean time New Zealand thinks GDPR is a good idea so they may implement something similar in the future. I expect other countries to follow.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Scary. So what you're saying is that the law, implemented by the government of Europe, has an unknown effect, and, furthermore, an effect which could reach to anyone in the world regardless of whether they have any relation to anyone that's agreed to be under the authority of the government of Europe?

 

That's just wrong on so many levels. And by "wrong", I don't mean to imply your assessment of the situation is incorrect.

Pretty much. Since the GDPR intentionally doesn't list all the different things that are considered "personal data", it will take someone asking in court "is this personal data?" and a judge deciding whether it is or not according to their interpretation of the regulations. The same could happen for any other poorly-defined aspects of the GDPR.

 

It's this kind of scary ambiguity and unpredictability that leads to small-town American newspaper websites taking a blanket "block all EU" approach just to cover their butt. We'll have a better sense of how GDPR applies in a year or two once things get sorted out in practice, but until then, we're in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post

I should note that I am not a lawyer, I have not played one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. What I've said is my personal understanding of things.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

The moment you collect data on EU citizens you need to comply to GDPR.

The key point in this discussion is that people not under the EU's jurisdiction are now responsible for knowing that the person they're involved with is a EU citizen even when the user tries to fool the company into thinking otherwise. That's what's so scary here.

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

BTW, that's a good thing. In the mean time New Zealand thinks GDPR is a good idea so they may implement something similar in the future. I expect other countries to follow.

 

I can see why you think it's a good idea conceptually. (As a libertarian, is scares the bejabbers out of me that The Law is dictating that two parties aren't allowed to agree between themselves what who can collect what about whom.) But it's the implementation and it's absurdly global reach that I find remarkable: the EU is claiming that I must comply with their law even though I have absolutely no say it in. Ridiculous. (But, again, that's not to say that's not going to turn out to be legal reality.)

 

(The problem here is that, at least according to your reading, me putting a website up anywhere in the world implies that I suddenly have responsibilities under EU law. I don't actually see how that's going to be enforceable, but crazier things have happened.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

(The problem here is that, at least according to your reading, me putting a website up anywhere in the world implies that I suddenly have responsibilities under EU law. I don't actually see how that's going to be enforceable, but crazier things have happened.)

 

Ever noticed that GS collects VAT (although they don't disclose their VAT registration number :ph34r:) on PM's of EU citizens? Same difference.

 

As said before, it's because of the likes of FB that this law was made. Even people without accounts had their data collected without their knowledge, talk about scary. At least now rhere's a tool to fight this. Rest assured, one of the the first to experience GDPR will be "one of the big ones" (FB, Google,MS, Apple...)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, on4bam said:

Ever noticed that GS collects VAT (although they don't disclose their VAT registration number :ph34r:) on PM's of EU citizens? Same difference.

I don't pretend to know anything about it, but I assume collecting VAT has to do with the fact that they're selling people a service, so that seems quite different.

 

12 hours ago, on4bam said:

As said before, it's because of the likes of FB that this law was made. Even people without accounts had their data collected without their knowledge, talk about scary. At least now rhere's a tool to fight this. Rest assured, one of the the first to experience GDPR will be "one of the big ones" (FB, Google,MS, Apple...)

I certainly hope you're right, but I fear its biggest use will be shaking down smaller sites that can't afford to put up a fight. We won't hear about those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I certainly hope you're right, but I fear its biggest use will be shaking down smaller sites that can't afford to put up a fight. We won't hear about those cases.

 

Complying with GDPR is not rocket science (hey, even I could do it). In short, inform users you collect data, which data and how it's used. Allow users to check the data collected from them and allow them to correct it and/or have it removed. Inform users when there was a dataleak/breach within a certain timeframe. Inform users who has access to their data and who is responsible for Data Protection.

Even without GDPR I would expect a respectable company to do just that.

 

BTW, I had two internet shop sending me "offers" every month for years. I was not a customer, never contacted them, hadn't even heard of them before they spammed me. I tried to get off their spam list without success a few times. The first time they spammed me after GDPR went into effect, I mailed them again, demanding they would not contact me again referring to GDPR. I haven't been spammed by them since. That too is GDPR, they spam me again, it will cost them ;)

 

Edited by on4bam
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/20/2018 at 10:47 PM, on4bam said:

As said before, it's because of the likes of FB that this law was made.

And "the likes of FB" have armies of lawyers to help them interpret and navigate this law.

 

Meanwhile, those of us who do not have armies of lawyers are expected to comply with foreign laws that take an army of lawyers to interpret and navigate.

 

Is anyone surprised that non-EU sites simply block EU IPs rather than deal with this law?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

And "the likes of FB" have armies of lawyers to help them interpret and navigate this law.

 

Meanwhile, those of us who do not have armies of lawyers are expected to comply with foreign laws that take an army of lawyers to interpret and navigate.

 

Is anyone surprised that non-EU sites simply block EU IPs rather than deal with this law?

It really doesn't take armies of lawyers, just a little common sense and, I would argue, some respect for your consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

It really doesn't take armies of lawyers, just a little common sense and, I would argue, some respect for your consumers.

I'm sorry, but allowing someone to ask for help in a public forum, and then delete/hide the thread once they've gotten the help they wanted, is anything but "a little common sense" to me. And respect for my "consumers" would lead me to keeping such threads online, not to allowing the OP to delete/hide them.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

I'm sorry, but allowing someone to ask for help in a public forum, and then delete/hide the thread once they've gotten the help they wanted, is anything but "a little common sense" to me. And respect for my "consumers" would lead me to keeping such threads online, not to allowing the OP to delete/hide them.

 

It looks like you still don't understand what GDPR is about. As for complying with "foreign laws", do you really believe people outside the US don't have to comply with US laws?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, on4bam said:

It looks like you still don't understand what GDPR is about.

Well, I never claimed to be a lawyer, and especially not an EU lawyer.

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

As for complying with "foreign laws", do you really believe people outside the US don't have to comply with US laws?

"When in Rome,..."

 

If I'm outside the US, then sure, I need to comply with the laws of whatever other country I'm in. And I don't expect US laws to apply in other countries.

 

So why do EU laws apply to US-based web sites, just because someone from the EU visits them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, niraD said:

If I'm outside the US, then sure, I need to comply with the laws of whatever other country I'm in. And I don't expect US laws to apply in other countries.

 

So why do EU laws apply to US-based web sites, just because someone from the EU visits them?

 

Then why do US authorities get passenger info on flights not by US airlines and not even coming close to US airspace? (and that's just one example).

 

You really think Microsoft would have given in on giving EU citizens a choice of browsers when installing Windows? What do you think will happen to Google's Android now the EU have imposed a hefty fine for forcing phone manufacturers to preinstall Google products and in the mean time denying them to preinstall alternatives?

 

I could also ask:

Why do (for instance) US software TOS apply to people outside the US?

 

You could also look up "safe haven" (about data stored on US servers).

 

BTW, I'm also not a lawyer but GDPR is of interest to me (as webmaster for our club) and my son works as a developer and has been working on large projects where data protection of utmost importance,  so for the last two years it's been a frequent subject around the diner table ;)

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, niraD said:

So why do EU laws apply to US-based web sites, just because someone from the EU visits them?

 

Because the suspect can be sued in justice irrespective of the country in which he or she happens to be staying. It is another story will this have any effect, but any global corporation must take this into account.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/20/2018 at 3:15 PM, dprovan said:

Scary. So what you're saying is that the law, implemented by the government of Europe, has an unknown effect, and, furthermore, an effect which could reach to anyone in the world regardless of whether they have any relation to anyone that's agreed to be under the authority of the government of Europe?

 

That's just wrong on so many levels. And by "wrong", I don't mean to imply your assessment of the situation is incorrect.

 

In this case no it's not wrong. GS I am assuming is sell membership and items into the EU. So the choice is to follow the rules with those individuals or only limit to non EU customers. I for one would welcome that all companies grant all customers this capability not just limiting to residents and citizens of the EU. Without the numbers I am guessing that the popularity of Geocaching is at least equal if not higher to the rest of the world, and should I  travel there I hope to find a few.

 

With that said. The concept they are trying to enforce is novel and treats the individual above the corporation. It's saying your speech, text, pictures etc.. are your property not the company hosting them. Now the impact on GS honsetly is minimal in my opinion and the impact on the average community member negligible. Is it annoying should it happen to you, yes. End of the world, no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/20/2018 at 10:47 PM, on4bam said:

the likes of FB

37 minutes ago, on4bam said:

You really think Microsoft

37 minutes ago, on4bam said:

What do you think will happen to Google's Android

19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

any global corporation

I am not Facebook. I am not Microsoft. I am not Google. I am not a global corporation. I am not a lawyer.

 

I'm just someone who runs a help forum, who is being told that helpful threads have to be deleted (or rendered useless) at the whims of the original poster (if that original poster is from the EU, and considers the original post to contain "personal data"). Which guarantees that the help forum will have to discuss the same topics over and over, because the previous helpful threads have been deleted.

 

That isn't "common sense" to me. And I don't think it is productive to push the web in a direction where the only ones who can play are global corporations like Facebook and Microsoft and Google who have armies of lawyers to sort through all this.

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

That isn't "common sense" to me. And I don't think it is productive to push the web in a direction where the only ones who can play are global corporations like Facebook and Microsoft and Google who have armies of lawyers to sort through all this.

 

Well, if a EU citizen wants his/her data removed from your forum, just do so. I already posted what GDPR is about (in short), it's not rocket science. What's not to understand about "delete my data"? Maybe you shouldn't be running a forum if this bothers you so much or stick to non-EU users.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Well, if a EU citizen wants his/her data removed from your forum, just do so.

Or maybe EU citizens should stop expecting to be able to delete things that they post to public forums. Once it's posted, it's public record. Deal with it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Or maybe EU citizens should stop expecting to be able to delete things that they post to public forums. Once it's posted, it's public record. Deal with it.

 

Simply... no!

We call it "right to be forgotten".

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Curious if it'd be simpler to just state in forum guidelines:

"When you start threads and post in forums, you should have an expectation of responses.  If you're not comfortable with responses, please don't waste others time by deleting your post." 

 - Then state a "time out" period for whatever number of times it's deemed annoying to the rest of us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

Or maybe EU citizens should stop expecting to be able to delete things that they post to public forums. Once it's posted, it's public record. Deal with it.

 

As other countries are seeing GDPR in action they are realizing it's a good idea (New Zealand was one of the countries to "like" what GDPR is all about and thinks about inplementing something similar). So you might see more countries doing the same.

If I take a photograph, I have the copyright on it. If I want it deleted I have that right (and that's long before GDPR) as the rights holder. It now covers data too. You will have to deal with it, like it or not but the EU is now making sure citizens have some power too and not only companies.

 

Have you looked up "safe haven" yet? It already covered dataprotection for data on US servers. GDRP takes it a step (or two) further.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm just someone who runs a help forum, who is being told that helpful threads have to be deleted (or rendered useless) at the whims of the original poster (if that original poster is from the EU, and considers the original post to contain "personal data"). Which guarantees that the help forum will have to discuss the same topics over and over, because the previous helpful threads have been deleted.

 

Our local authorities has explained that before they send you a huge fine they try to instruct you to do things correct way. There is no reason to overreact.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, niraD said:

Or maybe EU citizens should stop expecting to be able to delete things that they post to public forums. Once it's posted, it's public record. Deal with it.

 

Not how the world works.

 

Besides like I said would be great if companies would open up these features to all users.

I don't plan on using it but let's say I cut and paste something dumb or bad maybe I would like to have it removed. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

Our local authorities has explained that before they send you a huge fine they try to instruct you to do things correct way. There is no reason to overreact.

 

Agreed

 

Besides right now you are seeing the initial response to these rules. Eventually new systems will be developed, coded, implemented that will be built around this fundamental right. It will get easier and hopefully the result is not draconian as delete the entire thread. Change is one of the only certain things in life.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I don't plan on using it but let's say I cut and paste something dumb or bad maybe I would like to have it removed. 

 

If you say something dumb, I think I have just as much of a right to call you on it.  :)

 

If you say something bad, a Mod would be along shortly and delete that for you, as well as maybe give you a time-out  (or worse). 

 

When someone has a snootful and says something awful  to another, their post is vaporized by a Mod when reported.

 - But IIRC, their obscene post gives them "points" (lack of a better word) for time out, or flat-out banned from the site. 

If this thing deletes entirely (doublesecretdelete), are their "points" still accrued? 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...