EU Privacy Complaint

[snowymountains]

34 minutes ago, forestofclarity said:

Something few online posters seem to get. Our conversations here are not private between two people. Who knows how many people read our posts, in the present or sometimes even years in the future? 

 

And ? What's that supposed to mean exactly ? Can you clarify "get" please?

 

I've taken a screenshot of your post which you made under the capacity of a moderator.

 

I hope you "get" what GDPR is.

 

Edited Saturday at 07:02 PM by snowymountains

[forestofclarity]

36 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

And ? What's that supposed to mean exactly ? Can you clarify "get" please?

 

I've taken a screenshot of your post which you made under the capacity of a moderator.

 

I hope you "get" what GDPR is.

 

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you threatening some sort of legal action? 

[snowymountains]

12 minutes ago, forestofclarity said:

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you threatening some sort of legal action? 

 

Please be aware, per GDPR people have a statutory right with regards to their privacy both "in the present" and "several years in the future". Privacy actually needs to be as strong as if conversations were "private between two people".

 

Please clarify what you meant about what people do not get.

 

Also please explain why you perceived GDPR compliance to be a "legal threat".

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Please be aware, per GDPR people have a statutory right with regards to their privacy both "in the present" and "several years in the future". Privacy actually needs to be as strong as if conversations were "private between two people".

On a public forum like TDB? 

[snowymountains]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

On a public forum like TDB? 

 

Yes, privacy needs to be at the same level. It's privacy, not the content of the public posts ( as long as they don't contain private information ).

 

It's also statutory and enforced by the EU itself, which leaves me baffled as to @forestofclarity understanding of this right every EU citizen has and applies globally.

 

He doesn't seem to understand what it says nor that it's a right, nor that citizens do not need to make legal proceedings. It's not elective for @forestofclarity to respect it or not, it's statutory.

 

I'm surprised to read all this in 2024 I have to say and I would expect the site to take a clear stance on this.

Edited Saturday at 08:05 PM by snowymountains

[forestofclarity]

10 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Please clarify what you meant about what people do not get.

Anything you post in an open, public forum can be read by anyone. For example, other people are reading this post besides the two of us. 

 

13 minutes ago, snowymountains said:Also please explain why you perceived GDPR compliance to be a "legal threat".

 

I’m not “perceiving” anything. I have no idea why you seem to think posting on a public part of a public Internet forum should be private, why you think I’m acting as a mod, etc. 

 

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, forestofclarity said:

Anything you post in an open, public forum can be read by anyone. For example, other people are reading this post besides the two of us. 

 

 

I’m not “perceiving” anything. I have no idea why you seem to think posting on a public part of a public Internet forum should be private, why you think I’m acting as a mod, etc. 

 

 

Please do not underestimate my intelligence, I expect an answer on what you meant by "get", you made a direct reference to privacy.

[dwai]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Please do not underestimate my intelligence, I expect an answer on what you meant by "get", you made a direct reference to privacy.

Don’t want to speak for FoC but I’m sure he meant if people post ridiculous things on the public internet, it is there for the foreseeable eternity for the world to read. There’s no need to take it personally  

[forestofclarity]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

"get",

 

The word "get" is used in English to mean understand, and specifically to understand sort of in a gut level way. In this case, people don't seem to understand that when they post on a public forum on the internet, many people who are not involved in the discussion may also read their posts, even years later. One should consider their speech in this far ranging context. 

 

Public posts, on a public forum are not protected, as far as I know, by any privacy laws. 

 

[snowymountains]

10 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

MOD NOTE: Off topic conversation moved: 

 

 

Right, you moved those posts to a section where I cannot respond because for non-moderators it's read only, only you can respond there and provided the dictionary definition of get there. How convenient 

 

You also took the liberty to pick and choose which posts to include in the new thread you created, not including your original post.

 

Instead of drifting the conversation to profanities like the dictionary definition of get and that the content of public posts is public - Please be mindful, privacy-wise public posts are as good as private chats, for all EU citizens, regardless of whether you like that or not.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:37 AM by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

I find it ludicrous that acting at moderator capacity you challenge a fundamental right in the EU, "right to be forgotten", backed by federal legislation (GDPR) and respond with profanities that public posts are public.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this, you can move posts all you want, you however cannot ask anyone to "get" what you ask here, the right to be forgotten is not subject to any of your personal whims and whishes.

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

I cannot respond

 

No, that was an honest mistake, you can respond here if you like. In fact, this is the place to respond because your posts are off topic. Or you can PM. If you don't like the forum, feel free to stop using it. 

[snowymountains]

10 minutes ago, forestofclarity said:

 

No, that was an honest mistake, you can respond here if you like. In fact, this is the place to respond because your posts are off topic. Or you can PM. If you don't like the forum, feel free to stop using it. 

 

All EU citizens have the right to be forgotten, the forum and you need to respect that, it's statutory for all and not subject to your personal whims and wishes.

 

If you don't like that feel free to not mod a forum, you don't get to define a citizen right, I'm sorry.

 

Instead of responding with profanities that public posts are public, please be mindful, what you want everyone to "get" is simply not in your discretion for EU citizens.

 

 

[snowymountains]

11 hours ago, dwai said:

Don’t want to speak for FoC but I’m sure he meant if people post ridiculous things on the public internet, it is there for the foreseeable eternity for the world to read. There’s no need to take it personally  

 

For all EU citizens, their posts are not there for the foreseeable eternity. We have a right to be forgotten, it's federal legislation, what he meant is simply wrong. It's application is also entirely out of his discretion.

 

He even went as far as to say people should "get" his claim. No, he should get it's entirely outside his discretion, he doesn't get to define anything on that front, federal legislation does.

 

In another post he suggests he does what he wants and says whoever doesn't like it may leave, while from the moment a single EU citizen has registered ever with the site, GDPR applies, whether he likes it or not.

 

Will the site do a GDPR compliance course for its mods? It seems to me @forestofclarity is having some difficulties understanding it, it's a fundamental right in the EU and it's taken very seriously.

Edited Sunday at 10:07 AM by snowymountains

[Shadow_self]

If i recall correctly, the last time a case like this came up

 

https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/24/eu_court_justice_right_to_be_forgotten_ruling/

 

 

[liminal_luke]

If a member wants a particular post to be forgotten, they´re free to edit out the content.  I do this all the time.

 

The word "get" is not profane language, certainly not in the sense that FOC was using.  

 

I´m baffled that this is an issue at all.

Edited Sunday at 02:35 PM by liminal_luke

[snowymountains]

36 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

If i recall correctly, the last time a case like this came up

 

https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/24/eu_court_justice_right_to_be_forgotten_ruling/

 

 

 

Our right to be forgotten applies globally. There have been further rulings after the 2019 one, by member-state courts, which have been fully enforced.

 

My point though is not to discuss the judicial history of this, my point is that I expect this right to be fully respected, especially by mods. Which is the opposite of what I'm seeing right now.

Edited Sunday at 02:50 PM by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

If a member wants a particular post to be forgotten, they´re free to edit out the content.  I do this all the time.

 

The word "get" is not profane language, certainly not in the sense that FOC was using.  

 

I´m baffled that this is an issue at all.

 

it goes well beyond self-editing the content, e.g. it includes but is not limited to quoted posts by other members, messages, private messages between different members who refer to a member.

 

The issue is that @forestofclarity believes he's at liberty to define if posts stay forever or not and also ask that we "get" it. He's not at liberty to define anything on that matter and they do not stay forever, it's a choice (for EU citizens)

[Shadow_self]

Just now, snowymountains said:

 

There have been further rulings after the 2019 one.

 

Would you mind posting them. Id like to see it

 

It seems like it would both be unenforcable and breaching the US constituion, especially around compelled speech

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Would you mind posting them. Id like to see it

 

It seems like it would both be unenforcable and breaching the US constituion, especially around compelled speech

 

You can find e.g. the later French ruling, as well as later rulings by other member states, which were enforced, beyond the EU borders, US companies currently comply with it or if compliance burden is too high, block EU users entirely, as it's EU users who have this right.

 

I am not interested in discussing further how you feel about it, how you interpret it etc if you don't mind.  You may have your view of course but ultimately it does not matter if you are convinced it's a right or not, feel free to make a site where you ignore it if you want, not particularly interested.

 

I do expect the site and the mods to respect that those members who are EU citizens have this right, instead of @forestofclarity 's profanities

[liminal_luke]

The backlog of posts here are a treasure for future Bums.  It would be tragic if these posts were somehow automatically erased to satisfy some European ruling.  The forum has never worked that way and I hope it never will.

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

The backlog of posts here are a treasure for future Bums.  It would be tragic if these posts were somehow automatically erased to satisfy some European ruling.  The forum has never worked that way and I hope it never will.

 

If a member's posts, quotes of posts, references to a member etc, stay or not depends entirely on whether the member wishes them to stay or not, if the member is an EU citizen.

 

It's a right we have, I'm sorry if you find that right "tragic" but it became a right exactly so that it applies regardless of anyone's personal views and feelings about it.

Edited Sunday at 03:23 PM by snowymountains

[Shadow_self]

18 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

You can find e.g. the later French ruling, as well as later rulings by other member states, which were enforced, beyond the EU borders, US companies currently comply with it or if compliance burden is too high, block EU users entirely, as it's EU users who have this right.

 

Im quite aware of the companies who block EU access based on GDPR. I am asking you for the link to a reference spefically related to the "right to be forgotten". You seem to be familiar with it, so it would save me plenty of time looking

 

The last case ive seen around that topic was the 2019 one, which is why I asked you for a more recent one

 

18 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

I am not interested in discussing further how you feel about it, how you interpret it etc if you don't mind. 

 

Im unbothered about such trivial nonsense to be honest. I dont "feel" any type of way (and Im from the EU)

 

The below observation is just one barrier I know of as to why there is no "right to be forgotten" in the US.

 

This is why im asking you to send me the case that contradicts the above judgement related to the "right to be forgotten"

 

18 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

I do expect the site and the mods to respect that those members who are EU citizens have this right, instead of @forestofclarity 's profanities

 

What profanities?

 

 

[snowymountains]

Just now, Shadow_self said:

Im quite aware of the companies who block EU access based on GDPR. I am asking you for the link to a reference spefically related to the "right to be forgotten". You seem to be familiar with it, so it would save me plenty of time looking

 

The last case ive seen around that topic was the 2019 one, which is why I asked you for a more recent one

 

As you say yourself US companies do comply with GDPR (or block EU users entirely so that they don't have a compliance burden).

 

If it's an intellectual question as to why US companies comply with the right to be forgotten, as it may look unintuitive to you, this is fine, but exploring this inquiry is not the intent of my posts. The fact is they do comply.

 

It's interesting that if a registered member who is an EU citizen at some point wishes their data removed, they actually do not even need to cite GDPR, just request that a site removes all their data and references to them in plain English.

[Shadow_self]

29 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

As you say yourself US companies do comply with GDPR (or block EU users entirely so that they don't have a compliance burden).

 

If it's an intellectual question as to why US companies comply with the right to be forgotten, as it may look unintuitive to you, this is fine, but exploring this inquiry is not the intent of my posts. The fact is they do comply.

 

It's interesting that if a registered member who is an EU citizen at some point wishes their data removed, they actually do not even need to cite GDPR, just request that a site removes all their data and references to them in plain English.

 

Ill try asking again, more directly

 

is there a court case you know of that has a ruling that directly opposes the 2019 one?

 

Here I am talking specfically about the "right to be forgotten"

 

This is not a "gotcha" question, nor something that i am trying to start a conversation around or anything of the sort

 

Your post implied there was. If so I am interested to read it (for reasons related to the US constitution)

 

I cannot find any. So I am asking you if there are, could you post one please