I found out that if you do that enough times, your account will permanently lose the ability to report ads. At least, the option is no longer present on my account.
It's interesting that this is highlighted in a British paper, as this is due to EU regulations that the UK will soon not be bound by. And the British government has already announced that they are ready to "seize the benefits of Brexit" by cutting down on such business hostile regulations as privacy [0] and human rights [1].
I would guess that this change will be rolled back in the UK as soon as it becomes legal.
> The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force just over 20 years ago in October 2000, vastly improving protections for human rights in common law, statute, EU and international law
People the British government don't like and who they have subjected to torture and extra-judicial killings, the biggest example being people in Northern Ireland opposing Union with Great Britain.
Human rights apply to all humans, but of course putting them in law mainly benefit the people who otherwise wouldn't have them respected. Anyone disadvantaged in society, in general.
I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at. Do you believe the wrong people get the wrong rights by the UK subscribing to the Human Rights Act? Do yoy believe the HRA isn't enough? I'd love to know!
GDPR fines are set among other things according to the resources of the entity that broke the rules. As a private person making a side project, you won't be liable for millions.
The most recent examples of individuals being fined have been fines around €200 [0]
This[1] site seems to track actual fines. I found maybe a dozen fines of individuals. Here is the largest fine of a 'private person' I could find: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-69. If the database is at all accurate and the description of the violation is correct I would say they were well into Criminal territory and not civil fines.
[1] https://www.enforcementtracker.com
Getting a maximum fine not only means that your handling of personal data was especially egregious but that you probably didn't cooperate in any ways with the relevant DPA and refused to rectify the problem.
I.e the maximum fine is highly unlikely for anyone to get, and if you get it you have done some very bad things.
Yes, and what the GDPR crowd is telling me is that I should just trust the EU to always act fairly and never engage in any kind of politically motivated subterfuge.
And not only that, my concerns and dissent regarding GDPR piss people off so much, that at this point, every comment I post just gets downvoted immediately. Now I realize it’s against HN guidelines to discuss this, but when I post a comment and the delay it takes for me to return from the post page is enough for my comment to already have a downvote, I feel discouraged. It’s very clear the person who did that had no good faith intent on a discussion nor intent to even minimally read my comment. And I’m supposed to try to argue my points in good faith despite this.
The pro-GDPR crowd may be winning the mindshare but they are inheriting the cancer of something not allowed to be criticized. And if we ever do see an egregious fee driven by political motivations, am I supposed to feel smug for having predicted the possibility or sad that my mere expression that the default maximum fines are so ridiculous that they basically terrorize anyone who is not a multinational corporation turned out to be well-founded?
All I ever asked for was for people to recognize the chilling effects that this regulation can have. The internet used to have so many small websites, forums and wikis, and many of these fall under the umbrella of GDPR. And this is basically the treatment I get for trying to represent this dying breed of website: as some corporate shill worth being buried and not considered.
It’s not like I care that much about being with the mob, but it pains me that as the open internet gradually dies, people flat out just don’t care. GDPR as it is today is just represents a huge amount of risk for anyone that is not a multinational corporation, and it only gets scarier the further down you are. I’m sorry but just telling people to not worry about how the law is written will not work. Some people will ignore it, some people will try to follow it, and some people will just stop trying altogether deciding the risk simply isn’t worth it. And that latter part is most likely to occur for websites that are more objectionable, since they will likely face harsher treatment just due to cognitive biases alone, since we’re talking about considerations that humans make rather than the word of law.
No, you're supposed to hope that the legal system will apply the law fairly and correctly. The law does NOT say that they can fine you 20 million Euro. The 20 million is an upper limit on a fine, but the law also specifies how that fine is determined, which _by definition_ is "something you can afford", because that's literally one of the factors.
Maximum fine is there for large corporations. If it wasn't specified at atleast that range many of them would ignore or knowingly break the legislation. And in general checking for many crimes the upper end of penalty is pretty big. Like DUI here could mean 2 years in prison. Though that is exceedingly rare.
This is very different for people. I have some issues with my sight causing pages that are mostly white to be painful to look at. Over time, it triggers migraines. But I know people with the opposite issue. So as an accessibility feature, websites should offer both modes.
Stayed with my iPhone 7 until iPhone 12 for the same (main) reason. Being able to have the phone unlocked on the way from my pocket was fantastic. Unlocking with Face ID takes at least two seconds extra, every time.
Completely agree. The new iPad Air even got it integrated in the sleep button, so Apple has the ability to continue offering Touch ID on all devices and keep the full screen display.
> You might need to retain some data for potential future refunds, for example.
Then that would be a legitimate interest, and you could store that information for a period of time that is reasonable for processing refund requests.
But you would be barred from using that same information for a different purpose, e.g. the loyalty program.
GDPR article 25 requires systems to be have privacy built in, so a system such as the one you describe where a separation of these concerns is impossible, would probably itself be in violation of the regulation.
