Wasn't worth it for me. A lot of time chasing imaginary internet points. No one gives a shit what you or I have to say or think. Why waste time on shadow activities like that?
I quit my blog and focused on my projects in the dark.
I don't think the law has done much at all. I operate a business that serves as a data broker / processor under GDPR.
I have had a total of 66 data requests in 4 years. I handle data requests and follow the laws, but I also understand the EU/UK has zero grounds to enforce anything against my business if I were to flat out reject all requests.
They can't fine me, I don't have a physical or business presence in Europe, though I do have European customers.
The only reason I handle requests is to protect my customers, not myself.
This is an admirable position, and one of my biggest problems with GDPR. Honestly, my only problem with it.
The EU does not have the legal jurisdiction to tell any company based outside of the EU what to do with its data, whether that data is about EU citizens or not.
If I ran a SaaS I would probably do the same thing as you (out of respect for my customers) but I certainly wouldn't feel any legal compulsion to do so.
Is that really true? My understanding for example in the USA is that if you violate the laws in another country, you automatically violate the laws in the USA (under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-pract...) - or is that really just limited to bribery? AFAIK some other countries have similar provisions.
Yes thank you, a more detailed read of FCPA would indicate it is primarily restricted to bribery (or at least payments that could be interpreted as bribery). But could a non-EU website operator still be fined for non-compliance with GDPR if it were to collect personal data on EU citizens? Do website analytics constitute personal data?
Jurisdiction issues are complex. In this case, the jurisdiction is defined by the location of the customer, not the business.
If your business ignores EU courts, that might not have an immediate impact, but in the longer-term, you have a liability if you ever do business in Europe, want to be acquired by someone with a business presence in Europe, and potentially in the future, travel to Europe.
GDPR is framed as a human rights law, and that has long-reaching claws.
It is currently not well-enforced, but there are many examples of clawbacks coming in. For US slavery, those clawbacks are coming 160 years later: buildings, businesses, and schools are being renamed. Statues are being torn down. In some cases, you're starting to see reparations (see Harvard). Milder versions of racism are subject to cancellations; things acceptable in 1980 are having repercussions on people's careers in 2020.
Then you've got issues of when you're persecuted for an unrelated reason, and the government is looking for an excuse or pretext to take you down. A famous mobster was taken down a century ago for tax evasion.
Jurisdiction is sometimes complex, but you don't have to be an attorney to see the disconnect in a court in say, Germany, claiming it has jurisdiction over the practices of a food blog run by someone in Kansas because someone in Berlin decided to sign up for their newsletter.
I want to be clear I think they have a moral and ethical obligation to delete that person's information if so requested. There's just no (legitimate) legal requirement. The huge jurisdictional overreach by GDPR is part of why you're seeing companies just outright ignore parts of it.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not GDPR actually covers anything in the spectrum of "human rights" but for the love of god slavery has nothing to do with anything about it.
Reasonable people cannot disagree about the framing of GDPR as a human rights law. The second sentence is "This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data."
Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which privacy is a fundamental, human right, or where the bounds are, but that is literally the phrasing of the law.
Reasonable people can argue about a lot of issues, and views on rights change with time. Ancient Greeks and not-so-ancient Afghans had sex with kids. Just over a century ago, women couldn't vote. It's hard to predict how views on human rights will evolve. Right now, there are huge cultural disconnect about a lot of things digital. It's not clear where they'll land.
The one in GDPR trouble wouldn't be your company anyway, since you're a data processor. The data controller is the one who needs to make good on the data requests.
Great news. Now the only required extensions are an ad blocker, tamper monkey, no script, multi-account containers, container proxy, tree style tabs and auto tab discard.
Mm, I am a paid customer as well. I use proton mail exclusively and I like the calendar. You can add events to your calendar from an email/invite. I also share calendars with non-proton users (my wife uses user iPhone/calendar app). I haven't had any issues with it.
That's what they say now, they don't exactly have a good extension record themselves.
I operate some popular extensions and I now maintain a v2 and v3 build (make file). I'd love to nuke the v2 build tasks and only operate in v3. Most users are on Chrome anyway.
If you're lucky, v2 will be kept around for legacy extensions that are rarely if ever updated.
V3 and request modification banned are two different things. The chrome still support request modification in v3 but disallow extension to use it(only allow enterprise policy or whatever to enable it). While firefox don't have plans like this (so far).
Alternative strategy, buy a few dozen bags of uncle bens instant rice and a dozen Psilocybin spore syringes for like ~$100. Grow a few tubs full of mushrooms and sell them online and get paid in Monero.
Cash out a small portion of the profits (~$200) and double up your production. Do that a few dozen times. When you got around $50,000 in profit exchange the Monero to ADA/DOGE/SHIB and hold for 2-3x.
The last part was just for fun. I was originally going to throw in a "Start a cash business and launder your drug money through it." which is probably more useful.
This may be somewhat anecdotal, but I founded a product in the recruiting space and my daily active users and key metrics are all well within expectations and trending up.
I would say we are doing fine, do not let the fear mongering get to you.
It's a tough position to be in. I think the CoC is fair in that you shouldn't discriminate the ex-felon. You can't refuse to work with someone because of something they have done in the past and paid for (with jail, presumably).
You are a part of something and have a job to do. That job entails working with people (even if you don't like them due to something they have done, their race, gender, sexuality, or whatever). Do your job, or quit. He quit.
The thing here is "paid for (with jail, presumably)".
In this case, society has effectively said the crime will not ever be "paid for" because the person is on a Public List for Life. Few crimes in society have this result.
"Society" is malleable. These registries are recent, and may be discarded. And "society" is different from place to place. Homosexual behavior, and consuming cannabis, were likewise barred from society too. The scarlet letter was for adultery but society has downgraded the penalty for that.
The subject matter here involves the sharpest reactions most people are prone to, I think, so most people involved here may agree with "society" on this one.
True that laws/customs/view of society may change but people live in the now.
I am not sure I agree with the premise of simply blocking people out of your life. It isn't a sustainable way for society to function. Adults have to interact with other adults, even ones you hate.
But I don't know how else to resolve it except for one or the other quitting.
you may consider an ex-felon to have paid their debt to society, but I don't. I don't think that someone being forced to sit in a cell for a few years, and receiving abuse from guards and inmates. Maybe even abusing other inmates. Makes him deserving of forgiveness from society. Sure, that is not ideal. In an idea world someone leaving prison would be deserving of forgiveness, but that is not the case in the US.
From the looks of it, this individual offended in 2011 and did his time (120 days in prison). Hasn't offended since (nearly 11 years). It seems to me like he made a mistake, did his time and did something useful with his life since. If he can't "re-enter" society, then who can?
For the record, I never said society needs to forgive this guy. You don't even need to like him. But if you work in the same company or committee, you need to do your job and let him do his (or quit).
Everyone is so quick to cancel people these days. Everyone needs to grow up.
His debt will be paid in full when the victim has been "made whole". The nature of the crime means the victim will likely never be whole again.
Also, forgiveness is not absolution.
I'm not sure what the alternative should be. Unfortunately I am much better at recognising a bad system than providing the framework for a good system. Maybe this specific offender is now fit for society. However, my point is that by virtue of having served a sentence does not make him fir for society.
It is reasonable for a victim of a crime to request that they not be forced to work with someone who committed that crime.
Discrimination is a problem when it is not proportional to what is being subject to scrutiny, and when it is outside the realms of something that can be controlled by the person.
In this case the discrimination is minor - not working with the person - and it was the specific actions of that person that lead to the situation.
What you’re effectively doing is trawling the tolerance paradox. It’s often used by people who are extremely intolerant to prevent anyone from shutting them down, and it is important to be aware of when you are allowing one party to say that any response to them other than wholesale acceptance is discrimination.
I quit my blog and focused on my projects in the dark.