User Controls
Is this website GDPR compliant?
-
2018-07-06 at 11:33 AM UTCGDPR 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. -
2018-07-06 at 11:44 AM UTC
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.
that sort of thing is relatively minor, the main point of it is Web services now have to disclose what data they're collecting from users and why - for the average user it makes little difference because they're unlikely to understand the information they're now given, but the idea is to force companies that essentially traffic in user information and behavioural profiles to change their business models so that they serve the user, not some third party that's willing to pay for that information -
2018-07-06 at 11:45 AM UTCUnless you're talking about that other EU legislation that was essentially just a reboot of the 'copyright' sections of the TPP - that was rejected the other day from what I hear
-
2018-07-06 at 11:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra that sort of thing is relatively minor, the main point of it is Web services now have to disclose what data they're collecting from users and why - for the average user it makes little difference because they're unlikely to understand the information they're now given, but the idea is to force companies that essentially traffic in user information and behavioural profiles to change their business models so that they serve the user, not some third party that's willing to pay for that information
Oh look, some Australian is lecturing me about an EU law I have studied for hours on end. -
2018-07-06 at 11:51 AM UTCsounds like you didn't study it very well
-
2018-07-06 at 11:55 AM UTC
-
2018-07-06 at 7:48 PM UTC
-
2018-07-06 at 7:58 PM UTCThe author of this post has returned to nothingness
-
2018-07-06 at 8:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by apt Only real function it served was allowing website owners to be doxed easily
Yeah, honestly mandatory public and correct whois info is/was a system that didn't pose any problem for large organizations but hurt small service providers, especially those in controversial areas. When I registered NiS I had to choose between risking domain seizure or having my legal name, email, and home address on the record as associated with the site. But this isn't an issue for corporate "persons". -
2018-07-06 at 8:38 PM UTCit's not like domainprivacy and co haven't been around for a decade anyway
-
2018-07-06 at 9:35 PM UTC
-
2018-07-06 at 9:38 PM UTC
-
2018-07-06 at 9:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny And what good are those things doing for the public?
Also you realize you don't have to register a trademark or copyright on a work in order to create it, right?
Trademarks enable brands. Without them anyone can build a Dell running Microsoft Windows and sell it on an Amazon website.
Copyright helps make money for book authors and movie producers. The idea is to incentivise productive endeavour. -
2018-07-06 at 9:52 PM UTCSo how does a mandatory WHOIS info requirement incentivize productive endeavor?
-
2018-07-06 at 9:54 PM UTCwait i can get lamys address if i ask who is ?
LAMY, who is u? i want to come give u a hug u seem sad lil bromo -
2018-07-06 at 9:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So how does a mandatory WHOIS info requirement incentivize productive endeavor?
I didn't say that, or even imply that - there is no mandatory copyright info requirement.
In my view public WHOIS information is good as property should be registered - and people should be able to find out what belongs to who. That way information is available for such things as making social policy. I do not like the idea of secret property or secret proceedings. -
2018-07-06 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill I didn't say that, or even imply that - there is no mandatory copyright info requirement.
This seems exactly what you implied with these two quotes:Originally posted by Lanny lol, and what good was whois info doing the public previously?
The exact same good that trademark and copyright info was doing the public.Originally posted by Lanny And what good are those things doing for the public?
Also you realize you don't have to register a trademark or copyright on a work in order to create it, right?
Trademarks enable brands. Without them anyone can build a Dell running Microsoft Windows and sell it on an Amazon website.
Copyright helps make money for book authors and movie producers. The idea is to incentivise productive endeavour.
You yourself point out that you're not required to register or declare your copyright on a work while providing accurate WHOIS info is mandatory. I don't think your analogy is working very well.In my view public WHOIS information is good as property should be registered - and people should be able to find out what belongs to who. That way information is available for such things as making social policy. I do not like the idea of secret property or secret proceedings.
1. WHOIS requirements have nothing to do with "secret proceedings"
2. The vast majority of property is "secret" in the sense that ownership is not public record. Even things like car or gun ownership records are not made public in most states. Why are websites a special class where everyone needs to have access to the record of websites you "own"?
3. You started this by claiming that the WHOIS requirement would "allow the rich to hide their identities and wealth" despite the fact that a corporate person can register a domain, meaning it is trivial for the capital holding class to operate a website from "behind the corporate veil". WHOIS info requirements simply don't give you transparent insight into website ownership. -
2018-07-06 at 10:16 PM UTCSometimes copyright ownership is declared. When enforcing copyright it is required to declare your information.
Having a company is not evil or unjust or weird or something only the rich do - I have a company myself and a domain registered in the name of that company. Corporate personhood makes perfect sense once you understand the issues. -
2018-07-06 at 10:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny And what good are those things doing for the public?
Also you realize you don't have to register a trademark or copyright on a work in order to create it, right?
Trademarks is the emblem to be registered. You can't copyright a word. but you can trademark an image with that word on it. usually a brand name. the corporate logo or emblem is trademark.
copyright is more of a research department before they officially copyright your written or musical works. they make sure that several paragraphs don't match. it's like 7 words in a row or 10 words in a row before they write you back to let you know there could be conflict.
you can request them to copyright and you get a certification. but you can still be sued if a quote by a published person shows up that matches yours word for word, and you didn't give them credit in your writing for being the first to express this.
Also, it used to be 7 years.. the Disney Law changed it to some weird amount of years. Like 88 years or some shit. look it up. -
2018-07-06 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Sometimes copyright ownership is declared. When enforcing copyright it is required to declare your information.
Right, when a copyright holder elects to enforce their copyright they have to claim that copyright. They don't have to publicly declare their copyright as soon as their work is "set in a tangible medium", in fact it's wholly possible to publish a work under a pen name and this is a regular part of the literary tradition.
Like you said yourself, the value of copyright is that it incentivizes productive endeavors. Mandatory WHOIS information disclosure does not.
