User Controls
Is this website GDPR compliant?
-
2018-07-08 at 11:01 PM UTCThose who would surrender their greater freedoms for the sake of security deserve neither.
-
2018-07-08 at 11:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No, I repeatedly asked you to make clarify your post but you seem to have refused to. If you want to take back what you said about the similarity to copyright law you can and we'll move on, but at present you seem to be avoiding addressing the point.
Honestly I don't know what post you're on about, and I don't really care. I don't even think it's relevant to the argument, just you claiming a "gotcha".there is no precedent for public disclosure of ownership of a site.
It's quite common for things to have to be registered at a central authority. Ships come to mind, so do things like radio stations and so forth. In many countries newspapers must be registered, and in some even bloggers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_regulation
The idea that there is no precedent simply doesn't hold water.The whois requirement never really worked at establishing ownership in the first place.
Yes, true. It should be better enforced.Inability to publish pseudonymously restricts freedom of speech.
Yes, true.
In the EU GDPR goes far beyond the internet and applies to all sorts of bullshit, like CCTV cameras and people's business interactions. I believe the effect it to assist the wealthy to hide their wealth, and increase the atomicity and anonymity of society, which I posit to be bad things as they enable easier exploitation of workers and greater wealth inequality. -
2018-07-08 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Honestly I don't know what post you're on about, and I don't really care. I don't even think it's relevant to the argument, just you claiming a "gotcha".
So you know what I'm talking about enough to complain about me talking about it, and to criticize its use in argument, but you don't actually know what I'm talking about and don't really care? It sounds to me like you've embarrassed yourself and are trying get out of simply admitting you were wrong.It's quite common for things to have to be registered at a central authority. Ships come to mind, so do things like radio stations and so forth. In many countries newspapers must be registered, and in some even bloggers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_regulation
The idea that there is no precedent simply doesn't hold water.
"quite common" no, registration of some things does exist but like I've pointed out a number of times now, the vast majority of property is not subject to a public registry. I've pointed out numerous times how creative works like books or art are not. Why do you think websites fall into the "public need to be registered" class while the majority of forms of human expression do not?Yes, true. It should be better enforced.
So you admit the GDPR essentially overruling the whois requirement changes nothing?Yes, true.
In the EU GDPR goes far beyond the internet and applies to all sorts of bullshit, like CCTV cameras and people's business interactions. I believe the effect it to assist the wealthy to hide their wealth, and increase the atomicity and anonymity of society, which I posit to be bad things as they enable easier exploitation of workers and greater wealth inequality.
Yes, you've told us what you believe the GDRP does, but you've given us no defense of that. Especially the idea that it somehow helps with wealthy over others. How exactly does the GDRP do this? Do you actually think that corporate tracking and data brokering was being used for anything other than making the wealthy wealthier?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-07-09 at 12:07 AM UTCI don't think so, the only thing I know GDPR is that whois is going to be impactated.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-07-09 at 1:47 AM UTCYes. Would you please enter your correct phone number, again?
-
2018-07-09 at 3:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny "quite common" no, registration of some things does exist but like I've pointed out a number of times now, the vast majority of property is not subject to a public registry. I've pointed out numerous times how creative works like books or art are not. Why do you think websites fall into the "public need to be registered" class while the majority of forms of human expression do not?
maybe becos books are passive, it doesnt do anything on your book cases while a websites,
they have the potential to solicit, store, trade and exchange PIs of its users. -
2018-07-09 at 8:27 AM UTCLanny, your post is worthless and doesn't even merit a response. Fuck off with your tactical nihilism and "prove to me" shite.
As regards books:All publishers must also supply full contact details (name of publisher, mailing address, telephone, fax, email and URL).
https://www.isbn-international.org/content/how-get-isbn -
2018-07-09 at 8:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Lanny, your post is worthless and doesn't even merit a response. Fuck off with your tactical nihilism and "prove to me" shite.
translation: you're tired of embarrassing yourself in this thread an are now trying to coordinate a hasty retreat.As regards books:
https://www.isbn-international.org/content/how-get-isbn
>publisher, not author
>isbn -
2018-07-09 at 8:36 AM UTC
-
2018-07-09 at 8:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Same thing for whois.
You don't have to use DNS to put information online.
True enough I guess. I think there's a difference between opting out of DNS and opting out of IBSN issuance (the former is basically a non-option while the other doesn't make much of a difference except for archival purposes). But fine, I'll give it to you, let's say there's precedent public registry of publisher information. Can you tie this back to how overruling of the WHOIS requirement advantages the wealthy? How exactly is it that you imagine anonymous publication helps the dominant power structure? -
2018-07-09 at 9:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Can you tie this back to how overruling of the WHOIS requirement advantages the wealthy? How exactly is it that you imagine anonymous publication helps the dominant power structure?
I never said WHOIS helps the wealthy, even though it does, very slightly, as now I can't tell who owns a .ie domain.
GDPR is just using privacy to help keep stuff secret. Secrets help the power structure.
To see how privacy is used in an evil way instance consider Heinrich Kordewiner, a blogger who reposted a video of a migrant attack he found on fb on his blogAccording to the search warrant, Kordewiner is accused of having «invaded the private sphere» of the murder victim, in breach of §201a of Germany’s Criminal Code.
https://www.document.no/2018/07/07/germany-decapitating-freedom-of-the-press/
Video:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kESGT_1523632398
The video doesn't even show any identifiable information, but that is beside the point.
We will soon see GDPR being used by the rich to control our access to information about them. It is going to have an incredibly chilling effect upon public discourse when it is. -
2018-07-09 at 9:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill I never said WHOIS helps the wealthy, even though it does, very slightly, as now I can't tell who owns a .ie domain.
Wrong. That's exactly what you said in this post:
Originally posted by Cootehill GDPR is only there to allow the rich to hide their identities and wealth.
It has zero benefit for the average person.
For instance whois information is now hidden for .ie domains.GDPR is just using privacy to help keep stuff secret. Secrets help the power structure.
To see how privacy is used in an evil way instance consider Heinrich Kordewiner, a blogger who reposted a video of a migrant attack he found on fb on his blog
https://www.document.no/2018/07/07/germany-decapitating-freedom-of-the-press/
Video:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kESGT_1523632398
The video doesn't even show any identifiable information, but that is beside the point.
We will soon see GDPR being used by the rich to control our access to information about them. It is going to have an incredibly chilling effect upon public discourse when it is.
The statute the dude was charged under is not the GDPR, is sort of an anomaly (from what I can tell the statute is rarely applied), and the case isn't resolved so it's not even slightly clear that this will be a successful prosecution. Basically your news story is irrelevant. -
2018-07-09 at 10:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill To see how privacy is used in an evil way instance consider Heinrich Kordewiner, a blogger who reposted a video of a migrant attack he found on fb on his blog
lol, what
how is this 'privacy being used in an evil way'
if anything the German police are abusing a law designed to prevent the paparazzi taking invasive photos in order to suppress media depicting migrant violence
your whole argument is retarded and I don't understand why Lanny is humouring you -
2018-07-09 at 10:11 AM UTC> GDPR is a tool to enable the rich because there's a clause that mandates one TLD does not maintain a whois database
where are you even getting these ideas -
2018-07-09 at 10:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Why do you think websites fall into the "public need to be registered" class while the majority of forms of human expression do not?
Unlike "art" or "music", you are collecting information. Information that has value. Information that users might want to keep private, or exercise at least some control over once you've got it. Is it so strange for people to want power to hold others accountable for treating their information negligently? -
2018-07-09 at 10:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Unlike "art" or "music", you are collecting information. Information that has value. Information that users might want to keep private, or exercise at least some control over once you've got it. Is it so strange for people to want power to hold others accountable for treating their information negligently?
a website doesn't necessarily store personal information (the fact that most do has to do with marketing trends more than needing it to run the site) and having a DNS record doesn't necessarily mean you're going to host a website -
2018-07-09 at 10:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra a website doesn't necessarily store personal information (the fact that most do has to do with marketing trends more than needing it to run the site) and having a DNS record doesn't necessarily mean you're going to host a website
You can find out who owns every building in your city if you really want to. Whether or not they're actually doing anything with the property doesn't matter. Why should it be any different for the internet?
(Strictly playing the Devil's advocate here.) -
2018-07-09 at 11:09 AM UTCWhy shouldn't it? They're two completely different things.
What's the benefit of logging that information, and does the benefit translate to DNS registration? What benefit is there NOW to validating the DNS registry?
Assuming it does, how does it balance against the chilling effects on speech where a person posting unpopular viewpoints can be attacked personally or have their opinions used against them in terms of family, friends and employment?
All of this is completely tangential to the topic at hand though. Coon literally just ignored the bulk of the GDPR to rave about the 'merits' of the DNS registration database after 'spending hours' researching it, probably on daily stormer or some shit given his posting history.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-07-09 at 11:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Why shouldn't it? They're two completely different things.
What's the benefit of logging that information, and does the benefit translate to DNS registration? What benefit is there NOW to validating the DNS registry?
Assuming it does, how does it balance against the chilling effects on speech where a person posting unpopular viewpoints can be attacked personally or have their opinions used against them in terms of family, friends and employment?
All of this is completely tangential to the topic at hand though. Coon literally just ignored the bulk of the GDPR to rave about the 'merits' of the DNS registration database after 'spending hours' researching it, probably on daily stormer or some shit given his posting history.
Don't act like you have some kind of entitlement to totally anonymous, untraceable speech. You don't. Don't expect a society that doesn't approve of your speech to facilitate ways in which you can circumvent their scorn. "Chilling effects on speech" are a spook.~ -
2018-07-09 at 11:33 AM UTCYou should only be able to use the internet if you have a SSN/SIN and your full name should be displayed EVERYWHERE. Anonymity isn't a right. Facebook should also be mandatory.
