Changing the subject. I take that as a sign that you understand how absurd your pontifications about the GDPR were. That’s great. I was able to help you. You’re welcome. However, it’s problematic that you chose to leave up incorrect info.
Now, you are not being truthful about what I wrote, so I do not think that it’s a good use of my time to lay out the issues here. If, at some point in the future, you are genuinely interested and able to behave like a responsible adult, we can talk about this.
9bananas@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
this is from a comment you made in this very comment chain:
this is so incomplete it can be regarded as false.
“anything connected to you username is personal data” is a false statement.
it’s only personal data in combination with a whole lot of other data. then it can potentially be considered personal data, if it can be reasonably used to identify someone. reasonably.
your votes cannot reasonably be used to identify you, even in combination with other data. they are irrelevant. same goes for all other data, except user names, in that quote.
here is a further clarification from the GDPR website:
so, for now, your votes, comments, etc., are not covered. maybe they will be in the future, but probably not.
because the GDPR provides a “right to deletion” this would mean that someone else could have data you own deleted against your will.
which means if a politician posts something on bluesky, and some random asshole replies to that post, that asshole could then have the politicians post deleted.
that’s obviously insanity.
while it is true that IP addresses can potentially be considered personal data, none of the listed data types by themselves are necessarily personal data.
your statement makes it sound as if they always are, which is wrong.
it is not reasonably possible to conclude who exactly posted something just from an IP or email address, for example. not without a whole lot more data. (since anyone can easily spoof an address, it’s not difficult)
which is why it is potentially personal data, but not definitely. that’s an important difference.
this discussion is entirely pointless anyway, since you already agreed to the terms outlined in your home instance as to how your data is processed.
for reference, here is the site for the feddit.org instances’ privacy declaration.
it outlines exactly how data is processed, in accordance with the GDPR.
and yeah, the instance has to consider the GDPRs processing guidelines, because they posses aggregate data.
but that’s also where you were wrong when you said that processing this data is in any way illegal.
doing so without informing the user, that is illegal.
processing it in ways other than the one’s outlined in the privacy statement , that is illegal.
but it’s not inherently illegal, as you said it is.
and before you (again) refuse to acknowledge that you DID say it’s illegal, here’s you saying exactly that:
the Fediverse is in no way “legally problematic”, because everything the protocol does is something you agreed to, when you signed up.
there is no violation of your rights, because the GDPR cannot protect you from not reading what you are agreeing to.
i do concede that one point i did get wrong was this:
i have posted a clarification that IPs and usernames specifically can be considered personal data, when combined with other personal data.
important to note is, that the other Fediverse related features like up/dpwnvotes, comments, etc. are still not personal data.
i wasn’t clear enough on that point, and that’s a fair criticism.
i would have noticed that ages ago, if you could be bothered to actually back anything you say up with a quote or any kind of specific pointer instead of vague and nonsensical accusations how “everything is wrong”.
it was a single, small detail in the original reply i wrote.
everything else, as far as i can tell, is accurate.
unless you can, specifically and with a quote point out any other issues.
i will simply ignore any further accusations without a corresponding quote of both the offending comment and a citation of the corresponding law (article and paragraph is fine, doesn’t need to be a direct quote, it just needs to be clear what exactly the issue(s) is (are)).
and please, for the love of god, stop spreading the misinformation that the Fediverse is somehow illegal, just because you didn’t read the privacy statement.
that privacy statement is all that a digital service provide is required to present to the user, if they don’t use your data in any other way than “legitimate interest”. which is specifically excluded from GDPR protections. and this exception is also mentioned in the privacy statement you did not read.
it. is. not. illegal. to. processes. your. Fediverse. data.
and it’s also not illegal to send that data to other instances, because you agreed to that being a possibility when you made your account.
not knowing about that, because you didn’t read how your data will be processed, doesn’t make it illegal.
you were informed about the ways your data will be processed, which satisfies the GDPR just fine.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A user is typically a natural person. A username identifies that person. Any information that is directly or indirectly linked to that username is thus personal data of that person. The GDPR explicitly gives “online identifier” as an example of an identifier. I did link to the official repository, which hosts translation in all European languages. Each translation can be reached with 1 click. It cannot be a language issue. I do not understand what the problem could be.
The personal data in the OP (consent options) are linked to a person via a cookie stored in their browser. I do not understand how one could make sense of the case without understanding what personal data is.
There also appears to be some confusion between GDPR and copyright. I do not know where these strange ideas come from.
9bananas@feddit.org 1 week ago
it does give online identifier as an example, that is true.
but it does not say that this alone qualifies as personal data.
it says that in combination with other data it can potentially be considered personal data.
this is the part you refuse to accept: an example that is given under the qualifier “potentially” and with the condition “in combination with other data” means that a username alone does not necessarily qualify as personal data.
a username linked to a phone number, for example, does qualify as personal data.
did you give your phone number to lemmy.world when you registered? because i didn’t.
and an email address is not necessarily personal data either.
burner emails for example are specifically designed to not be identifying of a natural person. which means that on its own does not qualify as personal data.
same goes for cookies: the Fediverse stack cookies for example store things like your settings, locally. that’s not personal data. it’s only personal data when it’s used for tracking and contains identifying information. which these do not.
you need a reasonable way to identify a natural person, and none of the examples you gave qualify for that.
anything connected to your user account only qualifies as personal data, if your username can identify you in the first place.
how us your username linked to your real name? because mine isn’t.
or does it say “General_Effort” on your driver’s license?
if you don’t use an email service that requires personal data to register, then your username is not personal data. (which Fediverse services can’t know for certain, so they have to assume that email addresses are personal data, even when they’re not)
so it can be true that YOUR username is personal data, but that is not automatically true for every user. which is irrelevant for a data processor, but very relevant for the law.
here is another explanation from the GDPR website that clarifies this important distinction:
pseudonyms, like a username (which is a pseudonym by definition), ONLY qualifies, if it’s relatively easy to ID someone.
which means it is explicitly NOT automatically personal data.
the law text you like to quote so much says EXACTLY that!
but just because “online identifier” is listed as an example for something that can potentially be considered personal data, you made the wrong conclusion that it is always personal data.
it is not always personal data. it depends on what other data is linked to a username. and how exactly the user is stored and processed in the first place.
i think where you make a massive mistake is this part here:
“typically” means “not always”.
and you are confused about the difference between a user being associated with a username from their own perspective and that user being identifiable by a third party by their username.
those are two different things.
you overgeneralize all of the GDPR, when the law really has to be considered on a case-by-case basis (meaning platform by platform, in the context of the article), which is the intended way the law works.
for an example of a username that is definitely NOT personal data, we can look at signal accounts:
signal requires a username to register for the service…and that’s all.
since there is no other information that can be used to identify a natural person, and the username can be anything, that username is not considered personal data.
only if a user ALSO registers their phone number, only then, does it become personal data under the GDPR.
on top of that anonymization can turn personal data into non-personal data.
an example of this is fingerprint data used to unlock phones: those are commonly stored as hash values using one-way algorithms that cannot be used to reconstruct the original fingerprint. this process turns personal data into non-personal data.
there is no confusion of copyright and GDPR on my part. that was you, when you brought up comments as an example of personal data, which is of course nonsense.
on top of everything you still haven’t provided an expansion of how exactly the ruling in the article relates to the Fediverse at all.
the ruling is about ad-tracking, which the Fediverse doesn’t use in the first place.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I still don’t get where all this disinformation comes from. What do you mean by “the GDPR website”? Are you under the impression that the linked website is somehow official? Even so, the information seems solid and shouldn’t give you these ideas.