2,962 karma · joined September 4, 2014
It uses screen real estate well but it feels weird to read from top left to the bottom right of your screen before you scroll. This makes it much harder to skim papers
> Recital 47 of the GDPR states that “The processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest”. However, if you intend to rely on legitimate interest rather than consent, you will need to apply the following three-part test:
> 1. The purpose test: Are you processing personal data in pursuit of a legitimate interest?
> 2. The necessity test: Is the processing proportionate to achieving your aims?
> 3. The balancing test: Is your legitimate interest overridden by the rights of the person whose data you’re processing?
They are pretty great, beyond the examples brought up here. For instance, on the criterion free/freely given, they write the following:
> The element “free” implies real choice and control for data subjects. As a general rule, the GDPR prescribes that if the data subject has no real choice, feels compelled to consent or will endure negative consequences if they do not consent, then consent will not be valid.13If consent is bundled up as anon-negotiable part of terms and conditions it is presumed not to have been freely given. Accordingly,consent will not be considered to be free if the data subject is unable to refuse or withdraw his or her consent without detriment.14The notion of imbalance between the controller and the data subject is also taken into consideration by the GDPR.
Regarding the last element they cite the examples of public authorities or employment (e.g. monitoring systems) as situations where there is an imbalance of power that may limit the ability to give consent freely (there are other bases for processing data).
Also, I want to quickly remind HN that the GDPR applies to any data processing and goes far beyond consenting to cookies but also to, e.g., any other tracking, "selling" the email address to an advertising firm, taking a video of you, etc.
The above is not a "copypasta". A person doesn't become suddenly interesting & someone to follow because they are subject to valid critcisim.
It is more likely you find him interesting, because you agree that "blacks are less intelligent" and women are to be blamed for being abused single mothers (or you are willing to overlook that, which is equally abhorrent).
Most normal people would probably take a look at SPLC's report and not blindly subscribe. But we both know you were already an avid fan long before your comment.
He basically just rants on for hours without end, committing logical errors, providing disingenuous arguments, and ranting without sources on the way. For instance, he styles himself to be a philosopher but does not engage with the scholarly literature at all while copying arguments by famous philosophers (like Locke) without any credit.
Let's not pretend that the above poster doesn't know about that. He tries to bait you into watching Molyneux because he is "good on philosophy and parenting", who can slowly indoctrinate you into his far right views[1] (he doesn't try to be to open about them)
For instance, this is his take on the Holocaust:
> ...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.
If anyone wants to take a look at this track record, in his own words, check out the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi.... (Also the source for the above quote)
Otherwise, you can also take a look at the less trustable but far more comprehensive RationalWiki overview: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux.
And if anyone wants to learn about denial tactics when faced with an alt-right, misogynistic mass shooter, using the example of Molyneux, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMfKihy33w
[1] An explanation of "the onion" can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
Additionally, most goods sold are already classified as a certain type of item for regulatory purposes in the EU, so that work has already been done.
> While it found the game may call up a certain measure of skill, "it seems evident … that the game also involves a large part of chance, so that it does not take 'only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties,'" the court concluded.
Beyond that, we all know that "vagueness" was just an Amazon pretext to force France to allow them to operate unchecked, i.e. without providing the demanded protection and deliver any item.
The thing is: When you're the kind of person that is able to amass m-/billions, you're unlikely to be very altruistic. Most of these people had to, excuse my language, fuck over people (workers, customers, investors, the larger public) along the way in various ways. You simply can't be a billionaire without some kind of severe exploitation and it is unlikely that, when you have no qualms doing so in one area, it is unlikely you care about people's livelihoods etc. in other areas (there are some exceptions ofc, Bill Gates comes to mind). Jeff Bezos is a perfect example: The richest person on earth has donated what amounts to a few cents for an ordinary person but with great public fanfare. Not even during the COVID-19 pandemic, he views it as necessary (cf. with Jack Dorsey, donating 1/3 of his wealth).
Please consider the human and, here, the limited resources of the developers.
I also want to laud the beautiful design of the webpage.
2) What you are describing is exactly what I mean: There are dozens of experts ("engineers") who have done their calculations but have come to different conclusions. To presume, as a journalist or expert, one's own calculations will provide the "truth" in such a situation is not only extremely arrogant but also, when it comes to a pandemic, extremely dangerous.
It reminds me of that electrical engineer at Imperial College who thought epidemiology is a cake-walk and wrote a paper predicting 5000 deaths in the UK, which stood in stark contrast to that modeling effort by a large group of actual, renowned experts in the field (epidemiologists, virologists, public health scholars) also at the Imperial College, whose estimates have at least estimated 20,000 deaths. The electrical engineer had to quickly backtrack on his claims after hundreds of scientists wrote in. Now imagine, every journalist would do that and directly publish it. That would be far worse than an article that brings up that 5,000 deaths study but also mentions other estimates.
Instead of journalists demonstrating the effect of Dunning-Kruger in a manner similar to what many computer scientists and engineers love to do about unrelated fields, they should rather listen to the experts and try to gather multiple opinions in order to triangulate what is probably correct.
That is such a dishonest way of framing it. No one was really concerned whether they would "sell" data. The issue was with the exorbitant amount of data they collect and its analysis for commercial purposes, be it ads (which doesn't involve selling data), targeted pricing or providing access to corporate admins.
The app basically uses Bluetooth Low Energy for the proximity measurements: The app generates temporary IDs, so if two smartphones with the app come close, they exchange their IDs and save the IDs of their respective partner locally and encrypted. If a person is tested positivive for the novel coronavirus, the doctor can ask the person to upload their list of contacts to the Pepp-PT server. The app can then compare its list with the list on the server and notify the user if they had contact with person who has COVID-19.
Source for the summary (before I found the site at the top): https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/apps/corona-warn-app-fuer-eu...