GDPR and how it affects Geocaching

[+on4bam]

When an account is removed  (deleted) caches should be archived anyway (no more maintenance) so cachepages could be attributed to being "placed by user123456" instead of one's own username, change the cache's name to a generic one  and content removed. Logs can also handled the same way. Log by "user123456" and content/images removed. That way all history remains intact without being identifiable.

 

 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, on4bam said:

When an account is removed  (deleted) caches should be archived anyway (no more maintenance) so cachepages could be attributed to being "placed by user123456" instead of one's own username, change the cache's name to a generic one  and content removed. Logs can also handled the same way. Log by "user123456" and content/images removed. That way all history remains intact without being identifiable.

 

I agree. And this process is an interesting one that also delves into the concept of identifiable information. In theory, since the person is actually only connected to all the data that exists about them on the internet, removing any reference to them personally can still mean leaving content on the internet, just in a more 'anonymous' form (like replacing users with anonymous profiles). But if that's the case, how much information must be ..anonymized? before the information can no longer be traced back to the original individual? One of the concerns about privacy is that you leave your impression on the internet, like sticking your hand in wet cement.  If you remove your hand, you still leave an overall impression (anything from finger prints, to reciprocal effects, network connections, etc) that could be reverse engineered to create a 'ghost' of who you are as a person.  That's the debate about all the cookie tracking, browser activity, ad targeting, etc and whether not keeping a direct link to your person is enough 'privacy' (heck, airport 'nudie' scans are completely disconnected from the person, but there are still very real complaints about privacy).  Though this anonymous internet 'ghost' may not be directly connected to you, at some point a good investigator will be able to 'fit' it with someone.

 

So, how smudged does that hand print in the cement have to be before it can no longer be traced back to the hand owner?  I think that's the question we're all asking about what has to be deleted, either by the letter of GDPR law, or the spirit of it.

 

The spirit of GDPR seems to imply the hand print needs to be smoothed out and filled in seamlessly.  The letter of the law seems to imply simply removing the hand from the cement is sufficient (and maybe removing any DNA traces).

Edited August 9, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Max and 99]

Another entire thread gone poof! And I thought it contained very helpful information in the OP.  

[+on4bam]

Explain??

[+Max and 99]

32 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Explain??

A new thread started last night, asking for opinions from us. Apparently the OP didn't appreciate our advice and deleted the entire thread. I said again, because a similar situation is what prompted this thread. 

[+on4bam]

OK, but it's been covered, not a GDPR requirement, but taking the easy way out by the ones who are responsible for the forum.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

10 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

A new thread started last night, asking for opinions from us. Apparently the OP didn't appreciate our advice and deleted the entire thread. I said again, because a similar situation is what prompted this thread. 

 

Yep.  The odd thing is they're not even in the EU, so I guess that  gdpr is gonna cover all folks by default.

[+on4bam]

15 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.  The odd thing is they're not even in the EU, so I guess that  gdpr is gonna cover all folks by default.

 

That's a good thing!

 

 

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.  The odd thing is they're not even in the EU, so I guess that  gdpr is gonna cover all folks by default.

I'm surprised that on4bam didn't jump on this post.

 

As he keeps saying, the ability to delete an entire discussion isn't a direct application of the GDPR. Instead, it's a globally-available option that HQ has put in place in an attempt to comply with the GDPR. The ideal case would be that the user would need to be from the EU and would only be able to remove their own content from the discussion, but HQ has taken the easier and faster route of allowing anyone to delete an entire discussion that they started. This is a voluntary choice by HQ, not a requirement of the GDPR.

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I'm surprised that on4bam didn't jump on this post.

 

 

I didn't?

 

 

[+noncentric]

On 7/29/2018 at 9:56 AM, on4bam said:

Hence the saying, "if it's free, YOU are the product".

Or the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch". 

 

 

On 7/29/2018 at 5:32 PM, egroeg said:

I thought the GDPR regs were for data that were collected from the users interactions with a website, whether the user knew it or not.  Things like:  name, email, address, ID numbers, location, IP address, cookies data, browsing history, etc.

 

In fact, if you look at Article 9 of the GDPR, section 2e, it specifically says "...personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject"  are not covered.  At least that's how I read it.

So, a post in a public forum might not be covered.

 

Then again, the sum of my legal experience is watching reruns of Matlock.

I think you read it the same way that I'm reading it.

In my opinion - If someone makes their own personal data public, then that is on them.  It would be "nice" for a company to let them delete that data, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement. Although I'd support a requirement if the person is/was a minor at the time of providing that data.  If someone's personal data is collected without that person's consent and/or knowledge, then that is another story and the company should remove that personal data upon request. I'd even assert that they shouldn't be collecting that data in the first place, but at a minimum they should delete it when asked. It's almost like there's a distinction between a company "collecting" personal data and "receiving" personal data. In the former, the company is actively gathering the data; in the latter, the company is passively receiving data that the person voluntarily provides.

 

 

On 7/30/2018 at 1:40 AM, on4bam said:

Just a quick question to those opposing GDPR, what's your real problem with it? Is it the implementation in different situations (website/forum... ) or the concept of datacollection it wants to regulate?

 

Do you think it's OK for website to track you all over the internet by means of cookies, hidden pixels and/or any other means (without your knowledge)? Do you think it's OK that data collected by registering is used for anything else than use on that one site like "share with 3rd party sites / partners" or do you prefer a website informs you first what they collect, how they store the data and what they do with it?

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with it, but that may be because I don't fully understand it.

 

In concept, I don't think a company should collect data about someone without that person's consent/knowledge, so those people should be able to request the data is removed. However, I also think that people need to learn that there are consequences for putting things out into the public web-o-sphere and so I hope my understanding of the clause mentioned by egroeg (Article 9, section 2e) is correct.  I mean, people shouldn't rely on something like GDPR to allow them to erase "dumb" comments that they make online. If it's so easy to erase their comments, then they may become less careful and/or thoughtful about the comments they make, which I think is a step backwards.

[+noncentric]

And it seems that [DELETED USER] is the default now.

And has been used by cachers that are seemingly not from the EU, or maybe they are EU citizens that just happened to places caches in the US.

 

The cache pages from these "forgotten" users remain, and logs by other cachers remain on that page. But the name of the CO is changed to [DELETED USER] and logs posted by that "forgotten" cacher are gone, even the Archive log.  The Archive log remains if it was posted by a Reviewer, but not if it was posted by the "forgotten" cacher.   I'm sure there will be a few cases where someone's challenge cache qualifiers are affected. Not too big of a deal?

 

I kinda think that the CO name of [DELETED USER], which is now static text and not a URL link, should be changed to a URL link to the Help Center page.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I'm sure there will be a few cases where someone's challenge cache qualifiers are affected. Not too big of a deal?

I kinda like the idea of [DELETED USER] being a wildcard for such challenges, kinda like blank tiles in Scrabble. If you found a cache that is now listed as being owned by [DELETED USER], then you get to count that owner as whatever you want to count it as.

[+noncentric]

Just now, niraD said:

I kinda like the idea of [DELETED USER] being a wildcard for such challenges, kinda like blank tiles in Scrabble. If you found a cache that is now listed as being owned by [DELETED USER], then you get to count that owner as whatever you want to count it as.

That would certainly make the A-Z/0-9 Cache Owner challenges easier to complete. 

 

And then there are those challenges about having X number of finds from a single CO.  Finds by different CO's that have all changed to [DELETED USER] would be aggregated into a single count.  Although realistically, I don't think there are enough instances for this to have much effect.

[+Max and 99]

Dang it! That's three threads that disappeared that I was participating in. I was getting too close to the real story, I think.

 

(Don't bother commenting about the GDPR.)

[+baer2006]

On 25.8.2018 at 12:26 AM, noncentric said:

And it seems that [DELETED USER] is the default now.

And has been used by cachers that are seemingly not from the EU, or maybe they are EU citizens that just happened to places caches in the US.

 

The cache pages from these "forgotten" users remain, and logs by other cachers remain on that page. But the name of the CO is changed to [DELETED USER] and logs posted by that "forgotten" cacher are gone, even the Archive log.  The Archive log remains if it was posted by a Reviewer, but not if it was posted by the "forgotten" cacher.   I'm sure there will be a few cases where someone's challenge cache qualifiers are affected. Not too big of a deal?

 

I kinda think that the CO name of [DELETED USER], which is now static text and not a URL link, should be changed to a URL link to the Help Center page.

Also, there is  this user .

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Also, there is  this user .

 

Bad implementation of a good idea.

 

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Dang it! That's three threads that disappeared that I was participating in. I was getting too close to the real story, I think.

 

Noticed there's a couple more on the watchlist for that cache now too.  

Wondering whether these people who post, don't like the answers, then delete everything go on some "list" somewhere so it isn't repeated.

One who deleted theirs  has posted since.

[+niraD]

And there goes another one. We just figured out what the OP's suggestion was, and - POOF! - the whole thread vanished.

[+Max and 99]

There goes another BIG one. I'm taking names. If you ask for help again...good luck.

[+terratin]

I find it annoying that I can't set my new profile to private for people not logged into geocaching. The old profile only showed the username while the new profile shows my photo, caches found and place where I live.

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

There goes another BIG one. I'm taking names. If you ask for help again...good luck.

 

Yep.   I have a list of folks too.  Two "types".    

Those that delete their post when they don't want to hear the answer to a basic guideline question "what do you mean I can't bury it ?"

Those who tell everyone they're wrong ("These explanations are BOGUS!"),  when they don't give even basic information to allow folks to help them.