Collecting data - TOU

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

 

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

Keystone confirmed this as a fact in a thread that I started, after noticing a thread in the Get Started section was vaporized by the OP. There was absolutely no issue with the helpful responses given, so I was skeptical of any Mod intervention. 

 

So given the aggressive interpretation of the GDPR on the Forum, it still makes me wonder if the Audit Log feature for PMO caches would be the next on the chopping block?

 

Full disclaimer: I have never owned a PMO cache and never felt the need to see an audit log, although I understand that some people might find it helpful or amusing. 

[+hal-an-tow]

7 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Interesting discussion regarding the audit log on PMO caches.  Kind of wondering how HQ will reconcile the feature with GDPR, in which the bar for Personal Data is set extremely low:

 

" In practice, these also include all data which are or can be assigned to a person in any kind of way. "

 

We've seen threads unceremoniously *poofed* out of existence on the Forum.  Seems like the Audit Log is in real jeopardy if something like a Forum thread was considered linking a Username and comments they made to a GDPR concern.

 

What do others think?

 

I wanted to find out first hand what the definition of personal  data is, and this is a quote from the  vast swathes of information from the I.C.O. , the UK organisation which is responsible for upholding data protection rights.

 

"Determining what is personal data

Does the data have any biographical significance in relation to the individual?
When considering ‘biographical  significance’, what is important is whether the data goes beyond  recording the individual’s casual connection with a matter or event which has no personal connotations for him. .....  Does the data focus or concentrate on the individual as its central theme rather than on some other person, or some object, transaction or event? If Yes, the data are likely to be personal data "

 

So if looking at a cache page is more than a casual connection,  and the act of recording who  is looking at it focuses on the person who looks at the page rather than the page itself , and it has 'biographic significance' then yes, it could be considered personal data, but I seriously doubt it.

 

Over reaction to GDPR by people believing third hand information is far more of a problem that GDPR itself, it reminds me of the Y2K  panic .So  here's a  thought.  If it is true that ALL caches have audit logs (as someone said earlier in the thread)  , and simply  looking at cache pages is indeed 'boigraphically significant data',  then Groundspeak is violating  GDPR all the time. It  doesn't matter that we don't see it, the data is there, being harvested by the business.

 

Personally I don't  think my visits to any cache page,  puzzle or otherwise, constitute more than a casual connection,  and definately not  boigraphically significant data , and if a puzzle CO  interprets my repeated visits as , say , lack of intelligence rather than admiration for their design skills, then that's  their  problem, not mine .

 

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

"Determining what is personal data

Does the data have any biographical significance in relation to the individual?
When considering ‘biographical  significance’, what is important is whether the data goes beyond  recording the individual’s casual connection with a matter or event which has no personal connotations for him. .....  Does the data focus or concentrate on the individual as its central theme rather than on some other person, or some object, transaction or event? If Yes, the data are likely to be personal data "

 

I'm just as confused after reading that as I was beforehand. Does stating on the cache page that Joe Cacher was first to find have biographical significance in relation to Joe? How am I supposed to know if his find had personal connotations for him? If it was his first FTF then it probably did, but if it was his 1768th find and he just happened to be first to GZ, then it's probably just another smiley that he won't give a second thought to after posting his log. Likewise the focus - is that statement focussing on Joe's achievement or the "transaction or event" of FTF? I could argue either way.

Edited December 2, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+noncentric]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I often look back at the cache pages of my favourites as they're generally places I really enjoyed visiting and I like reading the experiences of others and seeing what photos they've posted. Likewise I often revisit the cache pages of my DNFs to see if others are faring better than I did. If my doing so bothers some PMO owners, well, sorry.

I've done the same.  There have been some times that I've used the official app to avoid showing up on the audit log, but that doesn't work for archived caches - so I've occasionally wondered if my viewing an archived PMO cache has raised any eyebrows. But I'm really not losing any sleep over it. I have yet to have a CO make any comments to me about viewing their PMO cache.

 

 

8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

The context of my comments is attempting to solve local puzzle caches.  I know most of the COs, and I’m good friends with many.  I’d rather not give them the satisfaction of seeing me waste a whole evening trying to solve their puzzles!

Viewing the cache on the official app will not show up on the audit log - so that is one option you could use to 'mask' how many times you've visited a page.

 

 

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. 

 

I have seen threads locked for no good reason.

 

Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.

The Delete function was added because of GDPR, and I can be added to the list of forum users that recalls an entire topic disappearing.  There was absolutely nothing in the topic that should concern a Mod, so I can only assume that the OP deleted the topic because they didn't want to further expose themselves.

[+Team Microdot]

9 hours ago, noncentric said:

they didn't want to further expose themselves.

 

Yes. That would have been bad. Especially if we'd seen their underwear