Re: Version 0.16.47
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:53 pm
I mean, I could, I'd just lose.Twinsen wrote:You can't rename your CPU to your street address and the sue us.
I mean, I could, I'd just lose.Twinsen wrote:You can't rename your CPU to your street address and the sue us.
There a changes to train behaviour that will come in in the next version, you can find that in in the bug report section or in the changelog later on.ChurchOrganist wrote:I take it that's a no then??????ChurchOrganist wrote:So are trains completely back to normal now??
Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:Twinsen wrote:The extent to which the windows username is personally identifiable data depends strongly on how you interpret the law text. Just because it could be your real name, religion, gender does not mean it is. You can't rename your CPU to your street address and the sue us.
Just do the mind experiment: How likely would it be, that a judge uses his real name for his Windows account. How would someone who uses his real name for his Windows account, would interpret the law.Twinsen wrote:The extent to which the windows username is personally identifiable data depends strongly on how you interpret the law text.
Actually, one of the reasons is enough. You need a good reason.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
And to take it one step further - how will the court decide? That is the most important question.Oktokolo wrote:Just do the mind experiment: How likely would it be, that a judge uses his real name for his Windows account. How would someone who uses his real name for his Windows account, would interpret the law.Twinsen wrote:The extent to which the windows username is personally identifiable data depends strongly on how you interpret the law text.
Well, there is no reason to assume, that they need one. The GDPR is a behemoth of legalese. But it all just about not collecting data you do not really need and informing the user about what gets collected, how long it is stored and what it is used for.Unclebod wrote:I hope that Wube has a law firm that helps them look into this matter.
Honestly, I'm not sure what else you can actually do for GDPR, you're on the right level as far as I can tell.Twinsen wrote:The extent to which the windows username is personally identifiable data depends strongly on how you interpret the law text. Just because it could be your real name, religion, gender does not mean it is. You can't rename your CPU to your street address and the sue us.
GDPR is bullshit, but this, if this is really true, than it is pure idiocy. You can't deny the service to someone based on not agreeing with your rules? WTF? Just another reason of making two categories for laws:Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
Fortunately none of this is true.kovarex wrote:GDPR is bullshit, but this, if this is really true, than it is pure idiocy.Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
Actually FB is being sued against thatYou can't deny the service to someone based on not agreeing with your rules?
This sums up what's the problem with GDPR: If there is no feedback, there is little to no progress.Loewchen wrote:Fortunately none of this is true.kovarex wrote:GDPR is bullshit, but this, if this is really true, than it is pure idiocy.Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
This quote is not complete enough to not alter the meaning of what has been quoted!kovarex wrote:Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
IMHO, "no logging" in not the only solution. If you organize logs the way it not contains identification data, they still can be pretty useful. For example, if your program not requires files search in some form, you don't need their pathes in log to maintain it readable. Same with feedbacks.Gergely wrote:This sums up what's the problem with GDPR: If there is no feedback, there is little to no progress.Loewchen wrote:Fortunately none of this is true.kovarex wrote:GDPR is bullshit, but this, if this is really true, than it is pure idiocy.Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
They literally cut down one of the most powerful tools in programming for no clear reason at all.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about memory dumps. There is no way to ensure that they do not contain anything sensitive. Correct me if I am wrong.Merssedes wrote:IMHO, "no logging" in not the only solution. If you organize logs the way it not contains identification data, they still can be pretty useful. For example, if your program not requires files search in some form, you don't need their pathes in log to maintain it readable. Same with feedbacks.Gergely wrote: This sums up what's the problem with GDPR:
If there is no feedback, there is little to no progress.
They literally cut down one of the most powerful tools in programming for no clear reason at all.
I didn't read GDPR, but in Russia we've somewhat similar laws according to what I've read so far.
It is Law, and you could be sued for not following them. (And honestly, this did kind of sneak up on a lot of people.)kovarex wrote:GDPR is bullshit, but this, if this is really true, than it is pure idiocy. You can't deny the service to someone based on not agreeing with your rules? WTF? Just another reason of making two categories for laws:Oktokolo wrote:has to be fully optional - meaning, that it must not be a requirement to use the service or any part of it.Floaf wrote:Well, the regulation say that if the data can identify you in any way then it is personal information and should not be collected without:
1. good reason for the service provided (witch this is not since username is not needed for debugging) and
2. without the users concent.
- Laws that are moral and make sense, these should be obeyed
- Bullshit which should be ignored
From my understanding she only has to inform them of the change, as voluntary compulsion(I hope google translate is correct) is a legal thing in GDPR.bobingabout wrote:In short, she had to ASK all her employees if it was okay to keep their personal information,
Is there a chrome extension to hide these stupid cookie warnings? Most of the websites I visit since 25th May don't spam me with Ad popups but legal stuff. Untick everything and let me trough that shit.bobingabout wrote: It is Law, and you could be sued for not following them. (And honestly, this did kind of sneak up on a lot of people.)
My mum for example, manager of a local pre-school, was getting spammed by the government that she has to do this, before she's allowed to do that, and that she's not allowed to do this.
In short, she had to ASK all her employees if it was okay to keep their personal information, such as National insurance number, and bank account details, so that she can PAY them, and without consent she would be obliged to erase that data. (Which is fucked up)
On top of that, she had to inform ALL the parents of her children that they want to keep national insurance numbers, and phone numbers, etc., why they want to keep this data, and most importantly, allow them to continue to attend even if they don't want to let them keep the data.
This is some SERIOUS shit, and may be over the top, but it is law, and must be obeyed, even if you think it is fucking stupid.
On that note, you're already breaking the law right here, because the forums haven't asked me if it is okay to store cookies yet. (Like, 90% of websites I have visited on or since the 25th of may have asked if it is okay to store cookies, as per the GDPR compliance)