So, I'm <i>really</i> not trying to start a fight, please read this with curious intent.<p>I personally don't really feel like keeping my email is a violation of my privacy. If they're not "processing" it (that feels like code for "data mining") is this really required? I mean my email address is literally a public means of contacting me. It's kind of fun that they decided to use a one-way hash, but this story doesn't make me feel like the internet has really been improved.
I had a recruiter call me up with what I suspect was a made up role. At the end of the call he casually dropped in the line "ok, well, is it ok if I get back in touch when something more suitable comes in?"<p>It was conspicuous. I asked is he'd asked me that because of GDPR. He said yes. I said no.
> I would be very wary of a company who claims this legislation is onerous.<p>... and elsewhere ...<p>> On the other hand it also was not very hard for us. We are not a creepy company.<p>> This is not to say that preparing for GDPR didn’t take us 100s of hours. It did.<p>A company who it didn't affect much, spent 100s of our hours? I think it would reasonable to call that onerous.<p>The different & fair question would be if time was justified.
Even in Europe (at least in Spain), mainstream journalists and pundits are generally misstating the effects and contents of GDPR.<p>I wish not-so-hot takes like this are more widely read, and along with sane enforcing, contribute to the sorely needed education on these topics of the general population.
A colleague sent me this, lots of funny variants <a href="https://gdprhallofshame.com/" rel="nofollow">https://gdprhallofshame.com/</a>
So far I have received over 300 GDPR emails. When I am supposed to read all this? How do I track it? How can I track what each company stores about me?
Do I feel this in any way improved safety of my data? I don't think so.
American entrepreneurs who are proponents of GDPR are experiencing some serious Stockholm Syndrome. Or possibly they're just faking their love for GDPR to virtue signal.
Love how I got a popup asking me to sign up with a fb/ggle account, stating "To make Medium work, we log user data and share it with service providers."
"To make Medium work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use Medium, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy."<p>No Medium, I must NOT agree to your privacy policy and your cookie policy, because to use and share my data you need my FREE consent. AND you can NOT deny me reading an article without giving consent, because then the consent is not FREE, and it is NOT strictly necessary for the service.<p>Medium: either you allow me to read blog posts on your webserver without FORCING me to allow you to collect my data, or you don't.
Choose. But stop fucking annoying me with lying banners.
A popup (probably what used to be cookie warning) on Medium says:<p>> <i>Medium uses browser cookies to give you the best possible experience. To make Medium work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use Medium, you must agree to our Privacy Policy.</i><p>I <i>must</i> agree to logging user data and sharing it with processors?<p>EDIT: come to think of it, it might be a new, GDPR-specific, dark pattern. I can use the site without clicking "I agree", and the existence of that button sort of implies the consent is not assumed. The wording of the message ("you must agree") is just trying to bait consent.<p>EDIT2: I just read[0] that biggest sites in my country are treating closing the GDPR popup as giving consent to everything. This definitely does not sound as explicit, informed consent. I sincerely hope it'll land them in a world of hurt.<p>--<p>[0] - (PL link) <a href="https://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/klikasz-x-w-komunikacie-o-rodo-wyrazasz-zgode-na-przetwarzanie-danych/" rel="nofollow">https://zaufanatrzeciastrona.pl/post/klikasz-x-w-komunikacie...</a>