GDPR and stupidity

[jean]

The infuriating thing is that so many people in small organisations have agonised for months over things they didn't need to worry about at all, and have lost valuable contacts because they didn't realise they weren't required to do anything in order to keep them.

And I will now no longer hear from people I really wanted to hear from because in the deluge of emails, I somehow missed theirs.

[french frank]

The infuriating thing is that so many people in small organisations have agonised for months over things they didn't need to worry about at all, and have lost valuable contacts because they didn't realise they weren't required to do anything in order to keep them.

Well it's D-Day and we're still 'agonising', having done a few things and ruminating over what more we could do - short of sending out an email to people who may be long deceased, who have shown no interest in the forum for years and whose data we don't share or use for anything anyway.

And I will now no longer hear from people I really wanted to hear from because in the deluge of emails, I somehow missed theirs.

A separate issue from the allotment society, but unless you've actually deleted the email you can presumably opt in at any time. Meanwhile complaints have already been launched against Facebook and Google, two of the organisations that are the primary intended targets of the regulation.

[jean]

A separate issue from the allotment society, but unless you've actually deleted the email you can presumably opt in at any time.

I am beginning to get emails like this one, which seems to be the situation of the small organisations I was thinking of had they but realised it in time:

"I expect you are getting bored with hearing about GDPR and requests to sign up for mailing lists that you never intended to join. --- has never used pre-ticked boxes so we do believe that we have your consent to send you emails and newsletters a few times a year. All of you have applied to join our Mailing List or are previous customers - or both."

My fear as a consumer is that I won't remember that (in response to some unnecessary email) I didn't opt in to something I would have wanted to opt into until I've already missed out on important information, maybe not even then.

As for the allotment society - I am satisfied that I don't have to do anything. The enemies did not turn up at the AGM last week, and nobody else mentioned GDPR at all.

[french frank]

As for the allotment society - I am satisfied that I don't have to do anything. The enemies did not turn up at the AGM last week, and nobody else mentioned GDPR at all.

Enemies 0, jean5.

As for possibly missing out on something one would have not wanted to, well, I find life is too full to take advantage of everything on offer .

[Bergonzi]

Small organisations won't face fines - or so it was said on BBC TV news today.

However, I've asked (with great difficulty) an organisation who I haven't had a GDPR email from yet, to give me a copy of my data, and if they don't I will report them. They could get a £17 million + fine, and I hope they do.

[french frank]

Small organisations won't face fines - or so it was said on BBC TV news today.

However, I've asked (with great difficulty) an organisation who I haven't had a GDPR email from yet, to give me a copy of my data, and if they don't I will report them. They could get a £17 million + fine, and I hope they do.

You may not have heard from them because you'd already opted in to their terms. But, yes, they will need to provide you with details - unless their Privacy Policy makes it clear what data they hold, and why. As ours now does.

[oddoneout]

Small organisations won't face fines - or so it was said on BBC TV news today.

It is to be hoped that will be the case, but given the prevailing approach to such matters by the likes of HMRC(go after the defenceless small guy, turn a blind eye to the serious offenders) that assurance can't be taken for granted.

[Dave2002]

Some GDPR issues were mentioned on R4 yesterday around lunchtime, including the rise in phishing attacks arising from the GDPR deadline. I think another issue raised was “forced consent”. I had an email from TIME magazine today with a link to news items in a web page. Usually this leads to news items, but today there was a one off flash screen first. “Unfortunately” I was too quick, and only glanced at it, but I think one of the implicit things I was agreeing to by continuing on past was to allow my data to be sent to or through the USA. The poor thing about this is that now I can’t see an easy way to get back to that information to know (or change) what I may have “agreed” to.

Organisations should have well known access points to allow users to review and/or change their preferences. It shouldn’t be a one-off business.

[oddoneout]

Some GDPR issues were mentioned on R4 yesterday around lunchtime, including the rise in phishing attacks arising from the GDPR deadline. I think another issue raised was “forced consent”. I had an email from TIME magazine today with a link to news items in a web page. Usually this leads to news items, but today there was a one off flash screen first. “Unfortunately” I was too quick, and only glanced at it, but I think one of the implicit things I was agreeing to by continuing on past was to allow my data to be sent to or through the USA. The poor thing about this is that now I can’t see an easy way to get back to that information to know (or change) what I may have “agreed” to.

Organisations should have well known access points to allow users to review and/or change their preferences. It shouldn’t be a one-off business.

I think that may be one of the new requirements. In any case I would be inclined to ask the organisation concerned what you have,perhaps inadvertently, signed up to.
I was interested(and slightly puzzled) to find out that what I regard as forced consent is permissible for cookies, but not, now, for opting into sharing of data.My local newspaper now has its online edition blocked by a large notice that can only be removed by clicking acceptance of cookies, with a little line of text underneath saying that preferences can be changed afterwards. I never click to accept cookies( I know that continuing to use the site implies acceptance) and don't wish to start so sadly I won't be able to access the weekday news from that source(I do buy the weekend issue, but can't justify the cost of all issues). Yes I know it will seem daft to many but we all have our little foibles about situations in which we feel forced to act against our inclination.

[Frances_iom]

...so sadly I won't be able to access the weekday news from that source(I do buy the weekend issue, but can't justify the cost of all issues).

the judicious use of noscript(to turn on/off Javascript) + RequestPolicy addons/extensions for Firefox can remove most if not all of these barriers - the old Firefox allowed you to turn on/off images which was useful to avoid the invisible tracking images tho requestpolicy catches the more obnoxious cross site links with no other purpose than tracking - Farcebook is a major offender here - personally I'd be happy to see Zuckerbug locked away for many years

[oddoneout]

the judicious use of noscript(to turn on/off Javascript) + RequestPolicy addons/extensions for Firefox can remove most if not all of these barriers - the old Firefox allowed you to turn on/off images which was useful to avoid the invisible tracking images tho requestpolicy catches the more obnoxious cross site links with no other purpose than tracking - Farcebook is a major offender here - personally I'd be happy to see Zuckerbug locked away for many years

You have reminded me it's time to get my son to do bit of housekeeping on my PC, so I'll discuss this with him. Other sites I use have less obstructive messages, but still more obvious than pre 25th May - which of course is the point, I recognise that.

[Dave2002]

4.4. You shall retain ownership of any views, opinions, reviews, ratings, comments, content or material you submit, display, distribute, upload, post, share, publish or otherwise make publicly available on or through this Website (“User Content”). You grant us a perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, worldwide, royalty free and unlimited licence to use, modify, keep, share, sell, save, copy, distribute, publish, display, excerpt, reproduce, utilise, extract, make available and transmit such User Content in any manner and for any purpose. Additional terms and conditions in relation to User Content (including discussion forums and user reviews) are set out in paragraph 18.

The example I’ve just copied above comes from a site which attempts to match tradespeople with consumers. It seems to me to have serious problems and conflicts.

With somewhat heightened awareness of issues due to the onset of GDPR, I’ve started looking at what “we” are often “signing up” for.

So how does this typical gobbledygook from a T&C site make sense? Naturally most people don’t bother to read T&Cs anyway. In this case if I write an article or review on the site, according to the “rules” my words can be altered and reproduced for any purpose whatsoever. This is just plain ridiculous. Does it have any legal validity? Are most such T&Cs actually nonsense?

Similar considerations might apply to the for3 site, though I feel that most of us here and also the very helpful administrators would try to avoid such problematic conflicts.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Isn't that just a summary of the law as it already stood, long before GDPR - and even before the internet, Dave? If someone wrote a letter a newspaper, then they were granting a perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, worldwide, royalty free and unlimited licence to use, modify, keep, share, sell, save, copy, distribute, publish, display, excerpt, reproduce, utilise, extract, make available and transmit such User Content in any manner and for any purpose to that newspaper. The paper could publish it (or not), edit it, put it next to an advert that might imply that the writer was in need of a nice cup of Horlics, sell (or give) the right to republish the letter to the writers of a book called "Moronic Letters to the Times" - and the letter writer could do nothing, nor receive any funds for any such publications/sharing. What's different here, other than the site making this condition absolutely clear?

[Dave2002]

Possibly that is the case, in which case I am reminded once again of a quote from a character in one of Dickens' novels. You can guess which one.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]