Unless traffic volume causes truncation, turns out I’m not compliant!
GDPR is intentionally obfuscated and made scary by people who have an interest in others thinking the regulation is onerous and silly (so that it is eventually changed/removed).
The regulation is not very hard to read, I would recommend you do it if you haven’t and boils down to: “don’t pass on (process) information without informed consent, if someone requests that you remove their account you should do so- and also don’t keep records around, and do your best not to let anyone access personal information”, the last one is technically unenforceable, but exists to prevent people leaving open access to data processors and bypassing consent more than anything else. A secondary benefit is that people take access controls a little more seriously by forcing breach disclosures.
Even the cookie banners are not needed unless you’re setting cookies for data collection, especially for third-parties!
There is a distinct irony in that all the online simplifications (“gdpr for dummies”, “the 7 things to comply with for gdpr”) are misleading and harder to read than the actual text of the regulation.
EDIT; I was foolish to post this during the peak time for US people. It feels like the Americans want the GDPR to be perceived as a pain.
Section 49 gives, additionally, specific carve outs for logging even if they were a commercial entity.
Consent is needed to pass logging data to third parties or to process it beyond end user functionality.
Its easier to just read the regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
It could be that you are running ads and your ad provider is a processor in the EU and because they cannot handle jurisdictional consent well they attempt to pawn that off onto you in your terms and conditions. EU law has already decided that they cannot turn a blind eye however, if you aren't collecting consent then your processor has to assume that consent isn't given.
So yeah, worry about your contracts with third parties that might try to sneak in liability transfers and how your own jurisdiction would deal with that. If your provider is transferring that kind of liability maybe they are trying to also make you liable in the case that their ad installs a virus, so I hope you are already aware of such third party liability transfers in your contracts if your jurisdiction allows for such things.
This type of downvoting on HN is getting silly and needs to stop.
(And a thanks to those who did respond to OP with the advice he is not in GDPR violation. Frankly, a worrying number of HN readers are clueless about legislation that directly affects them, whether they like it or not.)
I hear this a lot. As an American that hosts casual personal websites, I can't help but worry that I'm in violation of the GDPR.
For example, my router logs connections for debugging. And my NGinx server maintains server logs for debugging.
These contain IP addresses. I'm pretty sure those are considered PII under GDPR. And there are a lot of things I think that follow from that, things I haven't bothered to look into or implement. Like whatever policies, disclaimers, notifications, request handling processes, etc. that need to be in place to gather those logs.
Whether or not I need a registered agent in the EU to host my website seems to be rather fuzzy too. It seems to come down to how "sensitive" the data I store in my logs are?
Its also not clear to me whether my home router is subject to GDPR if it receives and logs a packet that was sent to it by an EU citizen, regardless of whether there was a public internet service hosted on that router or not.
I mostly choose to not think about these things - but that nagging concern that my entire self-hosted digital presence violates European law does linger.