People's sexual orientation, ethnicity, or political views could be exposed in proposed EU changes to the 'GDPR' digital-rights laws, civil society experts warn, after a leaked draft.

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.

  • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 hours 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).

    • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
      1·
      54 minutes ago

      explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

      I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

      coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

      The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

      I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?