CEO/Principal Consultant at INNOQ, he/him, software architect, RESTafarian, conference tourist. Works at innoq.com. Fediverse: @stilkov@innoq.social

Germany
Joined April 2007
Filter
Exclude
Time range
-
Near
Replying to @mirko_novakovic
Verifizierter Account, >32k Follower … ja.
1
Jeder blamiert sich so gut er kann
Zukunft heißt Technologie. Bayern ist Marktführer: wir investieren in Digitalisierung, Robotik, künstliche Intelligenz, Hyperloop und Raumfahrt und entwickeln sogar Quantencomputer.
8
17
1
70
Das kann man besser kaum auf den Punkt bringen
„Wir nennen vor Krieg und Armut Flüchtende 'Asyltouristen', weil wir es auch immer total anstrengend finden, in den Urlaub zu fahren. Und schlimmer als auf der A4 im Stau zu stehen wird so ein Schlepperboot doch wohl nicht sein.“ #empathie #wirsindmehr youtube.com/watch?v=0LvGBe3H…
1
6
Replying to @rotnroll666
Agreed, Piotr Grudziński was fantastic. What a loss.
Leider ist die Antwort viel zu oft »ja«
Mein neuer Blog-Beitrag: "Beten wir Komplixität an?" heise.de/developer/artikel/B…
1
3
Replying to @kellabyte @clemensv
That would be relevant if it were happening in meaningful numbers, which I contend it just isn’t
1
Replying to @kellabyte @clemensv
The number one reason for the scare is that the problems are blown completely out of proportion while the benefits are ignored ;)
1
Replying to @kellabyte @clemensv
Sorry, but I call bullshit on most of those.
4
Replying to @kellabyte
Again, I agree (in general) and disagree (in this particular case). A better law would have been much better. No law at all would have been worse.
1
Replying to @kellabyte @clemensv
It did? Can you share some examples?
1
Replying to @kellabyte
Again, IANAL, but AFAIK the importance of precedents is one of the major differences in the EU and US legal system
1
Replying to @kellabyte
My prediction is it’ll have hugely positive effects for users’ privacy because, as @clemensv said, it has teeth. I also predict courts won’t follow pointless interpretations that don’t have users’ interests in mind
2
Replying to @kellabyte
As with software, *every* law gets its first real-life test in production. Bugs are ironed out in the next few years, or even decades.
2
1
2
Replying to @stilkov @kellabyte
The current version of the law is unclear and full of holes. It’s like a beta, or possibly an MVP version. We can argue whether we’d be better off with or without it.
3
Replying to @kellabyte
Yet it’s what every business currently operating in the EU has been doing since May 25, and the world hasn’t ended yet
2
2
Replying to @kellabyte
I see your point, and I wish it were clearer. But my expectation (and experience) is that judges don’t follow overly literate interpretations. Possibly a EU/US difference?
3
Replying to @stilkov @kellabyte
So far, I’ve been able to get by with asking myself “is this kind of usage something for which I can reasonably be expected to ask for the user’s consent”, given the kind of contractual relationship I already have with them
1
Replying to @kellabyte
IANAL, but I don’t think IP addresses you only briefly use for processing, or store only for, say, a few hours, can be considered a GDPR violation.
2
Replying to @kellabyte
Agreed. E.g. there are lots of things you shouldn’t log, or at least not keep, which of course complicates things. Keeping aggregated stats instead might work.
3
Replying to @kellabyte
I know, I’m not claiming it’s clear or easy to execute. I completely agree with its intention and the general model, though. Anything specific that comes up in terms of compliance? Always interested in discussing how to go about it technically.
1
1