cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195

https://archive.is/je5sj

“If adopted, these amendments would not simplify compliance but hollow out the GDPR’s and ePrivacy’s core guarantees: purpose limitation, accountability, and independent oversight,” Itxaso Dominguez de Olazabal, from the European Digital Rights group, told EUobserver.

The draft includes adjustments to what is considered “personal data,” a key component of the GDPR and protected by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  • iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval.

    Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!

    • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      54 minutes ago

      I mean, I like when I ask someone to explain a problem and then do. I don’t personally like it when someone explains a problem that’s pretty obvious.

      My point is the original commenter, by explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation. Actually, on second read it’s far more explicit - they’re defending why the change was made, not just explaining what happened. The downvotes were warranted (if you use downvotes as “this is a bad opinion, perspective, or contribution” which is debatably not their purpose).

      But the reality is even in describing a problem you’re coloring reality with your perspective. There are facts, things everyone can agree on, but in describing those things you color them. It doesn’t have to be tribal to push back on someone coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).