As if he read all laws of his own country that apply to him. Raise your hand if you actually read and comprehend all laws that apply to you. I'm willing to bet there's not a single person on this planet who really reads and comprehends all laws completely.
Usually you just go with common sense and reading a blog post or two when it seems relevant: that usually makes compliant and in the worst case it will get you a warning from the regulator (they give warnings for unintentional first-time violations, so they'll tell you if you're doing wrong and it bothers them enough (usually you're too small anyway), and you get a chance to improve).
Drone.ci is treating GDPR like any other law by steering well clear of the territory it regulates. The US also has stringent rules about online gambling, payment processing, pornography, copyrighted material, etc. Normal website operators don't become familiar with these rules or how to thread a business through them. They simply don't engage in regulated activity at all, unless making a deliberate and well-capitalized entrance with the help of lawyers and compliance professionals. (Obviously there are some high-profile counterexamples, but those are, well, high-profile).
If the GDPR were a law about data brokerage or advertising, then forum operators would be similarly far away from it. But it's a law about the handling and storage of data related to people, which you definitely do if you're running a forum. Ordinary websites have never been that close to the boundaries of legality before, so people are scared.
Lawsuits are used in a lost of western and eastern countries to try and right wrongs. Many of them use lawsuits to troll and money grab as well. It's not unique to the US.
This limitations means there's less frivolous litigation in the EU, unless it's a rich person or entity trying to silence someone, then they will waste money on frivolous litigation until the other party is unable to take it anymore (SLAPPs) a well known example of this is what happened to journalist Denis Robert who went through 10 years of multiple litigations in several countries for daring to expose the money laundering scheme happening in the European banking system in Luxembourg.
Just act in good faith and GDPR will not bite.
This is a european thing, if any law says $x is the max fine or alike, then for a first time offense you usually get much less.
now understand that fines are proportionate to the offense. Are you engaging in doing very bad thing to personal data on a very large scale and having a business based on this ?
no ? then what are you afraid of ? that failing to answert to one guy asking for what data you have on him will cause you to be fined to bankruptcy level ? I pity the fool as said that one guy.
Or how about: I'm sure the advocates for civil asset forfeiture made similar arguments.
If you want to argue that prosecutors on your side of the pond are impervious to corruption, well, consider that you're including Spain, Italy, and Greece in that body politic (at least for now).
The Sherman Act also mentions a ceiling of 10 million, 3 years of prison for private persons. And from history we know antitrust authorities broke up companies like AT&T or Standard Oil, which seems to me a much bigger punishment.
Both laws only mention the maximum fine.
Yet you don't see small companies sweating over competition law.
They would if it applied to them and they had to do work to comply. This is very simple. If a law applies to a company, companies will worry about it and the perceived risks. If a law doesn't apply to a company, they won't worry. Ideally, both the laws and their punishments are as narrowly scoped as possible to prevent abuse at the whims of enforcer subjectivity. It goes without saying that a business not affected by a law won't sweat it like they might if affected by a law. Couple that with ambiguities in the legislation and effort to comply and it's clear why small businesses sweat one and not the other. It's a very poor comparison.
Had you read the GDPR you'd knew that punishment is proportional to the offense, had you read the regulation in charge of receiving complaints you'd know that they said they will first give a chance to comply to the law before resorting to punishment. The only ambiguity is in the broad term "legitimate interest" offering exemption to GDPR.
https://government.diginomica.com/2017/08/10/ico-maximum-fin...
Then again you can stop brandishing this FUD as this kind of fine is not gonna happen to small actors. If you act in good faith and are found doing something wrong you'll receive a notification asking you to fix the issue.
Why do people think EU is dumb and will start distributing 20M fines right and left at the first offense ? Just look at how it's done up until now and what CNIL said about how GDPR will be applied.
I think this is the really important bit that Americans are missing.
We've had decades of regulation from ICO, and we've seen them do fuck all about a lot of stuff. GDPR isn't going to change their approach.
Now if I was legally required to act on every request in 30 days or face potential litigation, that's a totally different story. I'm doing something that's a fun hobby of mine for free that will benefit others with similar interests. The line is drawn when it can have real world consequences and take up a substantial amount of personal time in order to comply with frivolous requests. That's when it stops being fun and definitely not worth risking legal headaches.
That's not what happens though. You get a request, you have 30 days to respond to it (and for the vast majority the privacy policy is ok as a response) and if the requester isn't happy they report it to the regulator who writes for more information. In that situation you again send off your privacy policy, maybe with a bit more detail.
The regulator either tells you that you're wrong, and explains why, and gives you advice to come back into compliance, or agrees with you and tells the requestor that they've misunderstood the law.
And all of this has provisions for proportionality. The regulators will recognise that small forums run for small projects will not have resources to respond to many requests.
You could credibly argue that the sole purpose of a forum is to collect and share personal data.
1: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-acce... 2: https://jacquesmattheij.com/so-your-start-up-receive-the-nig...
The regulation makes repeated reference to proportionality.
> Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. 2Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.
For a simple forum this is a simple privacy policy.
And forums should already have something like this if they're complying with EG US COPPA or similar.
A letter from the NSA is a completely different story. You definitely need to hire a lawyer, probably an expensive one. One NSA letter could easily shut down a small startup.
I’ll let you figure out the rest.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/
> This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. 2Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. 3However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.
I’m sorry that this is a distinction you weren’t able to make.
The forum owner should create a simple privacy policy that details what information is gathered; why it's gathered; how long it's kept; and how to correct mistakes.
If someone does report the forum to the regulator all that'll happen is that a letter will be written asking the forum to come back into compliance, and giving advice about doing so.
GDPR makes many references to proportionality. It also mentions standard practice.
EG here: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-24-gdpr/
> Taking into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risks of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons, the controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation. 2Those measures shall be reviewed and updated where necessary.
> Where proportionate in relation to processing activities, the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the implementation of appropriate data protection policies by the controller.
> Adherence to approved codes of conduct as referred to in Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms as referred to in Article 42 may be used as an element by which to demonstrate compliance with the obligations of the controller.
It would destroy the usefulness of a forum.
> It would destroy the usefulness of a forum.
Couldn't you just anonymize their posts, for instance by updating their username to something like "Deleted User"? Wouldn't you be fine as long as there wasn't anything left to link them to their real identity?
Those are easily handled but still if you are a hobbist it’s just too much hassle.
A general question for the GDPR experts: If user A does a request of their data and user B added a page their Instapaper account that had user A listed, does that page have to be included in the response to user A?
I didn't get an answer there. It is basically the same scenario of one user referencing another.
It's been used to track and identify people. IIRC it's also been used in attempts to impersonate people.
So one can argue that text posts are personal data that can be used to identify them, but I suppose this is the kind of thing that is up to the court to decide.
If a user publishes on your forum he has disabilities, congratulations, under gdpr you just leaked user personal data of the worst kind.
I'm really not sure what people think they're gaining from posting these wildly inaccurate GDPR comments.
Why do you think GDPR forces forum owners to delete posts? Which bit of GDPR do you think introduces this requirement?
That by itself is way too much hassle.
Erm, asking for a friend.
(a) you are processing data of data subjects who are in the union related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects, or
(b) you are processing data of data subjects who are in the union related to monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union.
If you can avoid both of these, then I believe you can pretty much ignore GDPR.
If you have "no interest in doing business in Europe", it should be easy to avoid falling under (a). Recital 23 [2] discusses what it means to be "related to the offering of goods or services" to data subjects in the Union.
It means that you have to envisage offering services to such people. The mere accessibility of your website to EU people, or having an email or other contact details in the EU, is insufficient to show such intent. If you offer your website in EU languages that are not generally used in your non-EU country, accept EU currencies, mention your EU customers on your site, and things like that, will strongly suggest you are offering them goods and services.
What monitoring of their behavior means is discussed in Recital 24 [3]. It basically means tracking a person for profiling or analyzing or predicting their personal preferences, behaviors and attitudes.
Most sites selling things to end users probably don't need to do any such behavioral monitoring. If you do, just do a geoip check and exclude EU IPs. If you aren't trying to do business in Europe you probably want to do that anyway, because EU visitors are just noise in your data.
[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
If you can live with infuriating a small portion of your customers while have a protection that can be circumvented in a matter of seconds then geoip block is what you want, otherwise ...
Yes, that will also catch some of your existing US customers when they travel to Europe. However, you may actually want that, because the GDPR does not talk about EU citizens. It talks about data subjects "in the Union".
I haven't seen anything about what makes someone who is physically present in the EU count as being "in the Union" for GDPR purposes. One who wants to be cautious might want to count anyone physically in the EU as being "in the Union" for GDPR purposes until there is definitive guidance otherwise.
I imagine visiting an EU member would be unwise as well.
1000% increase in foreigners moving/ starting technology companies in the US.
seriously tho. great idea.
Remember Assange? He's fine as long as he stays in the embassy, but step into the back alley for a smoke and he's off to the hoosegow.
Does that also mean then that quoted content counts? What if another user merely copies/pastes text someone said into their own reply (like you have to do on HN)?