How about you read the law text itself for a change?
Here, let me post the relevant parts for you:
"‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
"The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. 6This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes."
The only time when an IP address is a *personally identifiable information* is when "Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them."
So, just an IP address by itself is definitely not personally identifiable information, and that is what the law says on the matter.
Like many other GDPR "critics" on/., you don't understand the basic ideas of GDPR because you have not read the law.
So, let me explain it to you in simple terms.
GDPR regulates *personally identifiable information* that someone who is a legal resident of the EU has shared with you. If someone just visits your website and does not leave any personally identifiable information with you, then you cannot identify them, and you have no obligations under GDPR, even if you collect their IP address. This is all there is to say about IP addresses as a GDPR issue.
If you have collected and processed information from a legal resident of the EU, information that you can identify them with, things like national ID, name, address, credit card or bank info, whatever, you have obligations under GDPR. They are very simple and straightforward.
You must keep the information safe, keep only what you need to deliver the service you're providing, explain what you are keeping and why in a simple language, explain how it is used with specifics, and let the person edit it if it is no longer relevant and remove it if it is no longer necessary, or if the user asks you to do so and you don't have a good reason to refuse.
Theoretically, the EU can ask a foreign court to apply the fines if there are relevant treaties in place (the US does this quite often, sending extradition requests left and right, for example). In practice, yeah, it is irrelevant for practically everyone operating outside of the EU.
So, if you're very thirsty and instead of water I give you some nice salted pork and tell you, "since you just swallow it, it's the same thing", will you be happy?
It means exactly what is says - that an IP address is not "personally identifiable information" (which, incidentally, is what the law says, too) except in very rare circumstances.
What you describe (linking an IP address and the data that come from it) is nonsense, because even if you have some data that you can connect to a dynamic IP, you cannot be certain that a second connection over that IP will be by the same person based on the IP number only.
Complaining about the GDPR without haven't even read the law produces a crock of badly written shit constructed by people who neither know nor care about what they're doing.
You obviously have no idea. IP's are "personal information": https:
Wrong, it is you who has no idea. And let me quote the relevant part of the decision for you:
However, the ECJ did not state that in all cases, IP addresses in the hands of a website operator should be considered personal data. Instead, it required an evaluation of “whether the possibility to combine a dynamic IP address with the additional data held by the [ISP] constitutes a means likely reasonably to be used to identify the data subject.”
GDPR is not concerned with whether or not an individual is an EU citizen, anyone located in an EU country is protected by GDPR and can apply for the protections under it.
Wrong, only legal residents of the EU are protected by GDPR. Clearly stated in the law, which you have not read.
According to one law firm
Well, find a competent one, or just read the guides that EU has helpfully posted for more than 2 years now.
If you operate a hotel, how would you limit your offers
Well, you just advertise locally, or if you want orders from within the EU, you comply.
This is an exercise of the right to correct information, not of "the right to be forgotten". The claims are against websites that publish the incorrect information about the disciplinary action that is no longer valid. It is the same as a sentence which has been revoked is removed from your criminal record.
If it's an EU rule then why... Is a specific country fining Google?
Because the EU is a confederation, in which the EP and EC draft the rules, and then each member is tasked with enforcing them on their territory, which is an obligation they have accepted by ratifying the EU treaties.
You don't know much about GDPR (proof: https://slashdot.org/comments....) so your opinion as to whether it is oppressive or protectionist is completely irrelevant.
No, when a government gets to spend money it is a disbursement from the government budget. A tax is an amount collected from a group of citizens that support the operation of their government. A fine is a measure to discourage criminal behavior, by a person or a corporation.
Get the reasons for the different definitions, just being loud and ignorant doesn't strengthen your argument.
What a load of crock. Logging IPs is not even covered by the GDPR, only collecting personal information is. A website has to comply only if it serves EU residents. If you employ people "from the EU" that are legal residents of a non-EU country, GDPR does not apply to them. If you apply EU residents, you obviously employ them in the EU, so you have to comply with all of the EU legislation, not just GDPR. If you operate a hotel, you're liable only if you sell your offers within the EU.
GDPR's sole reason to exist is to give me a legal option to force the likes of Facebook and Google to store and process my private information in a more responsible manner.
It is not difficult to comply with. A Mom and Pop shop does't need "a full time DPO" if they have a visitor from the EU or ship a package occasionally.
I looked at europa.eu, and I don't understand what you mean at all by "cleaning house domestically". The GDPR applies with the same strength everywhere in the EU, and to all companies that operate there. I've had personal data removed by EU companies after a GDPR request.
Yep. I always ask fans of the later movies to compare one scene - the dancing girl fed to the monster - in the original and the re-Lucased versions of the RotJ. Most people who watch them side by side understand immediately why the original trilogy was such a success, and why everything else was meh.
I think that Force Awakens and Last Jedi movies were phenomenal.
This must be some new meaning of "phenomenal" that is not in the dictionary.
Also, you don't know the original films very well.
Luke did not come off as a whiny, entitled baby. He was a hard-working country boy with a dream, to be a pilot. Between a sunrise and a sunset, he met a war hero and a member of a brutally destroyed legendary cult (Guinness); learned that his family was at the center of the most epic galactic story of his time; fell in love with a beautiful girl (Fisher), who was a hero and a princess (ah, that truly American obsession with royalty); and had his foster family, the closest people to him, destroyed by the person who killed his father.
Did he turn into a hero overnight? No. He chose the hero's way, but he remained relatable. He was a good pilot with some awareness of "the Force", but he did not become insta-Jedi by touching a light saber. He had to spend an episode and a half - an epoch in cinema - to become one. He was mocked by everyone, but his visions of his dead mentor. Solo laughed at him, Yoda mocked him, Vader told him, "you're not a Jedi yet", the mobster lizard dismissed his "mind tricks" and the evilest creature in that universe nearly killed him.
He faced real enemies and in number - he saved a princess only to have her fall for the other guy, fought a space battle or two, got nearly killed several times, spent a long time in exhausting Jedi training, had his hand cut off, and found out the girl he loves is his sister. Yet he did not despair. He won his battles, he learned the Jedi ways, he put on a glove and managed to do a trick no Jedi before him could - destroy the Dark Side couple, which in that universe is finding the Grail. In the end, he congratulated his sister and went on to party with two dead men and a dead lizard. Now, that's what I call a true, selfless hero.
What parts in the "phenomenal" sequel movies come even close to this epic journey? How did the sexless character of that Emma Watson wannabe became a "hero"? What "heroic" things did she accomplish that compare to the story of Skywalker? And what's the story of her getting there? Remind me, for I can't recall, those movies were that bad.
Like I said, you claim to take the movies "at face value", but it appears you don't know their faces very well. If at all.
I don't watch "animated movies", so I have nothing to say about them, but from what you say, they are not a story with strong female/weak male characters by producer request. I've seen E.T., though, and I definitely remember it NOT being "a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters". So maybe you really don't know what you're talking about.
You can have a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters. I
No, you cannot. For a story to be good, it needs characters that all can aspire to. We have plenty of "strong" female and "weak" male characters in the sequels. And you need no feeling search to know it is crap. Or that you're wrong.
Ask yourself this then. Did the SJW angle forced by Disney kill the possibility of a good story in the sequels? You know the answer is "yes". Just like the answer to the question "Did Lucas's obsession with irrelevant detail (of which the 'medichlorians' is the shining symbol) kill the possibility of having good prequels?" is also "yes".
And do you know what is the saddest part? That the image of the young Leia, leading a Rebellion while shaking her tits and looking like a heroine of a "next door neighbor" gonzo was much more of an "empowering girl role model" than all the vampiric old skeletons or the "wholesome", sexless Ridley of the new films.
The prequels and the sequels are a lesson in fail.
The first three films had originality, actor chemistry and did not take themselves very seriously. At the time, no one had done what Star Wars had in terms of visuals. The actors played as if they lived in the films. Shit was easy to relate to. Most of Lucas's ineptness as a director was "cured" by skillful post production work. They were good, solid fun films.
Almost everything past them, especially the latest few has been super-pretentious, self-conscious in the "oh, look at me greatness" kind of way, but that's all they had. The cast and the fascination of Lucas with special effects killed the prequels. Portman, the new Vader, the vader-boy, young Kenobi, the bad motherfucker should not have been there. The post-RotJ stuff is all shit, everything in it sucks. The stories are a contrived and stupid rehash of the original trilogy. Nobody knows who the people in the new films are. Hamil and Fisher's characters were unrecognizable, Harrison Ford showed up briefly to die, the token black guy and the giftless flat-chested broad are boring and mechanical. I don't even remember the rest.
So no, the original trilogy is nothing like the rest of the crap.
But you knew this already - you've surely received several "Hi, I'm a hacker, I installed a trojan on your router" spam crap, you've identified (by the password) the crappy website it was stolen from, maybe even changed it, then you checked the mail headers, saw that it came from a PC from India or Saudi Arabia and went on with your daily life.
Slashdot Mirror
How about you read the law text itself for a change?
Here, let me post the relevant parts for you:
"‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;"
"The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. 6This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes."
The only time when an IP address is a *personally identifiable information* is when "Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them."
So, just an IP address by itself is definitely not personally identifiable information, and that is what the law says on the matter.
Like many other GDPR "critics" on /., you don't understand the basic ideas of GDPR because you have not read the law.
So, let me explain it to you in simple terms.
GDPR regulates *personally identifiable information* that someone who is a legal resident of the EU has shared with you. If someone just visits your website and does not leave any personally identifiable information with you, then you cannot identify them, and you have no obligations under GDPR, even if you collect their IP address. This is all there is to say about IP addresses as a GDPR issue.
If you have collected and processed information from a legal resident of the EU, information that you can identify them with, things like national ID, name, address, credit card or bank info, whatever, you have obligations under GDPR. They are very simple and straightforward.
You must keep the information safe, keep only what you need to deliver the service you're providing, explain what you are keeping and why in a simple language, explain how it is used with specifics, and let the person edit it if it is no longer relevant and remove it if it is no longer necessary, or if the user asks you to do so and you don't have a good reason to refuse.
That's all.
Theoretically, the EU can ask a foreign court to apply the fines if there are relevant treaties in place (the US does this quite often, sending extradition requests left and right, for example). In practice, yeah, it is irrelevant for practically everyone operating outside of the EU.
So, if you're very thirsty and instead of water I give you some nice salted pork and tell you, "since you just swallow it, it's the same thing", will you be happy?
It means exactly what is says - that an IP address is not "personally identifiable information" (which, incidentally, is what the law says, too) except in very rare circumstances.
What you describe (linking an IP address and the data that come from it) is nonsense, because even if you have some data that you can connect to a dynamic IP, you cannot be certain that a second connection over that IP will be by the same person based on the IP number only.
Complaining about the GDPR without haven't even read the law produces a crock of badly written shit constructed by people who neither know nor care about what they're doing.
You obviously have no idea. IP's are "personal information": https:
Wrong, it is you who has no idea. And let me quote the relevant part of the decision for you:
However, the ECJ did not state that in all cases, IP addresses in the hands of a website operator should be considered personal data. Instead, it required an evaluation of “whether the possibility to combine a dynamic IP address with the additional data held by the [ISP] constitutes a means likely reasonably to be used to identify the data subject.”
GDPR is not concerned with whether or not an individual is an EU citizen, anyone located in an EU country is protected by GDPR and can apply for the protections under it.
Wrong, only legal residents of the EU are protected by GDPR. Clearly stated in the law, which you have not read.
According to one law firm
Well, find a competent one, or just read the guides that EU has helpfully posted for more than 2 years now.
If you operate a hotel, how would you limit your offers
Well, you just advertise locally, or if you want orders from within the EU, you comply.
This is an exercise of the right to correct information, not of "the right to be forgotten". The claims are against websites that publish the incorrect information about the disciplinary action that is no longer valid. It is the same as a sentence which has been revoked is removed from your criminal record.
Yeah, that's a good plan with one minor fault - there is no plant in China.
Tax avoidance is something entirely different from non-compliance with the privacy law. Why would you want to mix the two?
If it's an EU rule then why... Is a specific country fining Google?
Because the EU is a confederation, in which the EP and EC draft the rules, and then each member is tasked with enforcing them on their territory, which is an obligation they have accepted by ratifying the EU treaties.
it is really simple and straightforward.
You don't know much about GDPR (proof: https://slashdot.org/comments....) so your opinion as to whether it is oppressive or protectionist is completely irrelevant.
No, when a government gets to spend money it is a disbursement from the government budget. A tax is an amount collected from a group of citizens that support the operation of their government. A fine is a measure to discourage criminal behavior, by a person or a corporation.
Get the reasons for the different definitions, just being loud and ignorant doesn't strengthen your argument.
What a load of crock. Logging IPs is not even covered by the GDPR, only collecting personal information is. A website has to comply only if it serves EU residents. If you employ people "from the EU" that are legal residents of a non-EU country, GDPR does not apply to them. If you apply EU residents, you obviously employ them in the EU, so you have to comply with all of the EU legislation, not just GDPR. If you operate a hotel, you're liable only if you sell your offers within the EU.
GDPR's sole reason to exist is to give me a legal option to force the likes of Facebook and Google to store and process my private information in a more responsible manner.
It is not difficult to comply with. A Mom and Pop shop does't need "a full time DPO" if they have a visitor from the EU or ship a package occasionally.
I looked at europa.eu, and I don't understand what you mean at all by "cleaning house domestically". The GDPR applies with the same strength everywhere in the EU, and to all companies that operate there. I've had personal data removed by EU companies after a GDPR request.
Take a breather, nobody's buying your sad FUD.
So, you haven't published even one, but you know how they are written?
Heh.
How many papers have you published?
Yep. I always ask fans of the later movies to compare one scene - the dancing girl fed to the monster - in the original and the re-Lucased versions of the RotJ. Most people who watch them side by side understand immediately why the original trilogy was such a success, and why everything else was meh.
I think that Force Awakens and Last Jedi movies were phenomenal.
This must be some new meaning of "phenomenal" that is not in the dictionary.
Also, you don't know the original films very well.
Luke did not come off as a whiny, entitled baby. He was a hard-working country boy with a dream, to be a pilot. Between a sunrise and a sunset, he met a war hero and a member of a brutally destroyed legendary cult (Guinness); learned that his family was at the center of the most epic galactic story of his time; fell in love with a beautiful girl (Fisher), who was a hero and a princess (ah, that truly American obsession with royalty); and had his foster family, the closest people to him, destroyed by the person who killed his father.
Did he turn into a hero overnight? No. He chose the hero's way, but he remained relatable. He was a good pilot with some awareness of "the Force", but he did not become insta-Jedi by touching a light saber. He had to spend an episode and a half - an epoch in cinema - to become one. He was mocked by everyone, but his visions of his dead mentor. Solo laughed at him, Yoda mocked him, Vader told him, "you're not a Jedi yet", the mobster lizard dismissed his "mind tricks" and the evilest creature in that universe nearly killed him.
He faced real enemies and in number - he saved a princess only to have her fall for the other guy, fought a space battle or two, got nearly killed several times, spent a long time in exhausting Jedi training, had his hand cut off, and found out the girl he loves is his sister. Yet he did not despair. He won his battles, he learned the Jedi ways, he put on a glove and managed to do a trick no Jedi before him could - destroy the Dark Side couple, which in that universe is finding the Grail. In the end, he congratulated his sister and went on to party with two dead men and a dead lizard. Now, that's what I call a true, selfless hero.
What parts in the "phenomenal" sequel movies come even close to this epic journey? How did the sexless character of that Emma Watson wannabe became a "hero"? What "heroic" things did she accomplish that compare to the story of Skywalker? And what's the story of her getting there? Remind me, for I can't recall, those movies were that bad.
Like I said, you claim to take the movies "at face value", but it appears you don't know their faces very well. If at all.
I don't watch "animated movies", so I have nothing to say about them, but from what you say, they are not a story with strong female/weak male characters by producer request. I've seen E.T., though, and I definitely remember it NOT being "a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters". So maybe you really don't know what you're talking about.
You can have a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters. I
No, you cannot. For a story to be good, it needs characters that all can aspire to. We have plenty of "strong" female and "weak" male characters in the sequels. And you need no feeling search to know it is crap. Or that you're wrong.
Ask yourself this then. Did the SJW angle forced by Disney kill the possibility of a good story in the sequels? You know the answer is "yes". Just like the answer to the question "Did Lucas's obsession with irrelevant detail (of which the 'medichlorians' is the shining symbol) kill the possibility of having good prequels?" is also "yes".
And do you know what is the saddest part? That the image of the young Leia, leading a Rebellion while shaking her tits and looking like a heroine of a "next door neighbor" gonzo was much more of an "empowering girl role model" than all the vampiric old skeletons or the "wholesome", sexless Ridley of the new films.
The prequels and the sequels are a lesson in fail.
The first three films had originality, actor chemistry and did not take themselves very seriously. At the time, no one had done what Star Wars had in terms of visuals. The actors played as if they lived in the films. Shit was easy to relate to. Most of Lucas's ineptness as a director was "cured" by skillful post production work. They were good, solid fun films.
Almost everything past them, especially the latest few has been super-pretentious, self-conscious in the "oh, look at me greatness" kind of way, but that's all they had. The cast and the fascination of Lucas with special effects killed the prequels. Portman, the new Vader, the vader-boy, young Kenobi, the bad motherfucker should not have been there. The post-RotJ stuff is all shit, everything in it sucks. The stories are a contrived and stupid rehash of the original trilogy. Nobody knows who the people in the new films are. Hamil and Fisher's characters were unrecognizable, Harrison Ford showed up briefly to die, the token black guy and the giftless flat-chested broad are boring and mechanical. I don't even remember the rest.
So no, the original trilogy is nothing like the rest of the crap.
The only acceptable film post RotJ was Rogue One.
But you knew this already - you've surely received several "Hi, I'm a hacker, I installed a trojan on your router" spam crap, you've identified (by the password) the crappy website it was stolen from, maybe even changed it, then you checked the mail headers, saw that it came from a PC from India or Saudi Arabia and went on with your daily life.
After all, you're a "hacker" on Slashdot.
Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose, so to speak.
That's not the US way.
I think in the part "approached by a ./er" is describing a totally hypothetical situation.