I don’t think anyone has tested that in court. I wouldn’t be surprised if it should belong to you but fact that most CCTV footage is (or at least was) stored by small independent entities means that you aren’t aware that your CCTV data exists, or wouldn’t find it worthwhile to request it all.
It would be an interesting angle of attack against classic surveillance, though. If there are any vendors that store the video in some centralized system, so you can request it all at once.
But, I think there will be some hurdles, this case specifically relies on the fact that LinkedIn clearly doesn’t believe there’s any reason to keep this data private (they sell users access to it, after all).
You absolutely can request CCTV footage of you in the EEA. You need to specify time period with sufficient specificity, and how to identify you so they can ensure they are handing out footage of you, but you have a right to it.
It's rarely going to be worth requesting, but if you e.g. need evidence for a civil case, for example, it could be.
It’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
It would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
That is true in the EU in a number of circumstances. You can do a data access request for CCTV footage of yourself; I’ve successfully done this before, and some organizations give out CCTV footage this way often enough they have websites about their procedures. For organizations I know of, they blur other people in the footage.
Yes, of course. In European cities there are GDPR disclosures hanged on the lampposts on which CCTV cameras are mounted. The disclosure contains retention period and contact to data processing inspector where you can request the data. You probably need to specify the timestamps and haw to recognise you.
In commercial buildings the disclosure may hang on the wall besides main entrance.
"Pertains" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and you're using it wrong. The data about who viewed your profile pertains to you from the moment the visit happens. That's what that word means, so your first statement is false.
The other important detail is that LinkedIn already has processed this data that definitely pertains to you, whether you paid for it or not, and are trying to sell it to you. In fact, to quote the article, LinkedIn's argument for not giving it to the user is "on the grounds that protecting that data took precedence". LinkedIn isn't withholding viewer data to protect viewer privacy. We know this because they sell it. If the viewer's privacy interest were so compelling that it overrides your Article 15 right (which is what Noyb is referring to), it would also be compelling enough to prevent LinkedIn from selling that same data to Premium subscribers.
The argument being made for this specific feature (not the ones you added) is that you can't simultaneously claim the data is too privacy-sensitive to disclose under GDPR and then sell it as a product feature
Respectfully, that's bollocks. The data, by itself, either does, or it does not. Exchange of unrelated money does not change anything in the data itself. IOW, it's the data that matters, not a wannabe-service that is pitched to the rightful owners.
They'll then defederate also from you. The argument goes, you're a nazi/facist/racist/*phobe, because you associate with (== did not defederate from) the designated nazi/facist/racist/*phobe.
Yes, it's that toxic. Go subscribe #FediBlock hashtag if you don't believe me.
Ok, so what? Let those people block you then, sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways?
I've seen that, and I'm not sure what's supposed to be toxic. It's community-organized filtering of unwanted views, for the people who want to engage in that. I don't agree with that, so I don't participate or do that myself, and I also don't seem to face any negative consequences because I'm not participating in that. What am I supposed to be sad about here, that some people don't want to listen to my views?
Witch hunts and guilt by association are generally seen as toxic. If you disagree with that I'm not really sure what to say as it's a rather fundamental principle from my perspective.
> sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways?
That's all well and good when it's a single user instance or small group of friends. But often enough it will be a much larger one with unknowing participants caught up in it. Blaming them for choosing the "wrong" instance is about as productive as blaming people for using facebook - technically correct but that's about it.
That said, the AP model seems like the least worst to me. Every option I'm aware of has significant downsides.
Look, life is complicated and not a single issue, contrary to what admins of many of those fedi instances would like. Typical human has views on multiple subjects, but it takes only a single incorrect opinion expressed to have you ejected. Worse yet, it happens by leveraging the admin of your instance: they go to the admin and tell him/her that if you're not banned, they'll defederate the whole instance. IOW they're bullies, and bullies squared at that: they designed a whole protocol to enable bullying.
Again, go check #FediBlock. If you'd like a specific example of the single issue vs multiple issues, pay specific attention to trans vs black conflict there and see how it is played by both sides.
>Ok, so what? Let those people block you then, sounds like people you probably don't want to interact with anyways?
The problem is when this is a large server with people you know using it. They suddenly disappear from your feed. And those people may not have even agreed with the reason for defederation.
At that point, the only way to connect with your friend(s) is for you or them to find new servers that haven't (yet) gotten into a defederation slap fight.
The TL;DR of the problem with Mastodon is that you basically need to pin your identity to what is essentially a small internet community/forum and then give them full power to decide who/what you can consume while your identity is tagged to their community.
How is that when car drivers decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when bicycle drivers decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone on the street, car or not), it's somehow A-ok?
How come that when people handling uranium decide the rules are nonsensical it's bad, but when people handling bananas decide the rules (that, please note, apply to everyone with radioactive materials), it's somehow A-ok?
Hmm well, we have some "smart traffic lights" where I live that are always red unless a vehicle goes over a metal detecting loop under the road in front of them. Guess how well that works for any vehicle that's not a car.
Rules of the road are generally designed in the same way — for cars. Nobody cares about carving out obvious exceptions for bikes, like the Idaho stop.
> Not clear whether soldiers are acting on their own or following policy.
It mostly doesn't matter, unless they're punished. If they're not, then the policy is, what they did is okay. That's why it's important to keep army disciplined.
It doesn't matter for things that are bad whether they are policy or not, like sexual assault. It matters for things that are okay if they are policy, like strip searches. If prison guards do strip searches on their own for fun, that is a problem, but the mandated ones are not. (Assuming the policy was made with a normal level of concern for human dignity and officer safety.)
Doesn't matter, I (not OP, but also operating VPS) still want to support this, so the clients can eventually assume all correctly configured servers support it.
It's a bit of hit and miss, really. Like every big organisation, it's not a single, coherent entity, but has branches and departments filled by real, flawed people, so in practice it depends on which industry your're in. For example, digital policy bureaucrats are usually extremely competent, like, they do know how the stuff discussed here on HN works. (That they often have differen expectations from what people here want is orthogonal). Automotive industry is on the other hand squarely in bed with manufacturers (cars, but also accessories like child safety chairs). The average is suprisingly good, esp. in comparison with national bureaucracies.
I'd guess it's because of the general attitude of the project's community, specifically GNOME people and their “my way or highway” style of answering questions e.g. about CSD or other non-critical stuff, not directly related to core protocol. If they were a bit more accommodating to reasonable requests from outside, they'd get less backlash in comments. There's plenty of exemplar behaviour elsewhere in adjacent communities, they could have taken hint multiple times.
That they provide this stuff for free would be a good argument if the stuff wasn't pushed down people's throats with no working alternative and Xorg being discontinued.
And how would they be able to "push stuff down people's throats" if people could walk away towards alternatives? When such alternatives don't exist, that's exactly how "they do stuff for free and nobody else is putting in the work to make something else" looks like.
The problem isn't they "pushing stuff down your throats", it's nobody else (including you) making alternatives that you like better. You are voluntarily ingesting their stuff because your only alternative is starving.
> And how would they be able to "push stuff down people's throats" if people could walk away towards alternatives?
It's a forcing of their narrow opinion on what should be allowed onto the ecosystem at large, because all of these things are connected. You can leave to a different DE/distro, but if every DE is doing its own thing for global hotkeys or whatever, then software in the ecosystem is going to be hacky/bespoke or have an unreasonable maintenance burden.
Even if you in particular can move elsewhere the ecosystem is still held back. We only recently got consensus on apps being able to request a window position on screen, which is something x11, macos, and windows all allow you to do. CSD and tray icons are other examples of things found everywhere else that they did not want to support. Some applications are just broken without tray icon support.
This bleeds over into work for folks releasing software for Linux in general. By not supporting SSD they were pushing the burden of drawing window decorations onto every single app author, and while most frameworks will handle this, it's not like everyone is using qt or gtk. App authors will get bug reports and the burden of releasing software on Linux needlessly climbs again.
Hard to convey how unreasonable I feel their stance was on tray icons / SSD. It should be the domain of the DE from a conceptual but also practical point of view, even from just the amount of work involved. It reminds me of LSP's enabling text editors to have great support for every language. And again, Gnome was the odd man out in this, they want extra attention and work when Linux is the lowest desktop marketshare by far, and they themselves are not the overwhelming majority but they are large enough that you really do need to make sure your software runs well on Gnome even if you want to support Linux.
People think Gnome push stuff down your throat because they have the power and influence to impact the ecosystem, and they use that power and influence to die on absolutely absurd hills.
I dunno, I think tray icons support is kind of the absurd hill to die on. They're a Windows 95-ism and generally extremely horrible in terms of usability. Apps use them and desktop environments support them mostly out of a lack of imagination, and they are frankly extremely overused.
I'm personally a KDE user, but I'm with the GNOME folks on this one.
They may have been introduced in Windows 95, but they didn't actually become particularly common until years later. They weren't originally intended as a long-term feature and, in Win 2000, Microsoft started recommending that people use custom Control Panel objects or MMC console snap-ins instead. But the MMC wasn't an option in Win98/Me and, by the time MS finally managed to produced a consumer variant of NT, use of the system tray had become entrenched.
I'm not sure what Windows is like these days, but in MacOS they're patently absurd. My corporate Mac laptop has twelve of the fucking things, and I've never actually had genuine need to click on any of them (and 5 of them are from Apple and so of course use 4 different corner radii between them - the 3rd party ones are at least a little more consistent).
Not OP, but that post clearly was alluding to Hitler coming to power democratically. That they don't need to worry was a very dark joke. Anyway, it's just history.
There are more recent examples in Europe, like Putin, Orban and Vucic. All of them got elected fairly, and all of them engaged in the process of slowly but surely breaking democratic institutions and checks and balances down. The guidebook is actually exactly the same. Putin is now 25 years in power, Orban 16 years and Vucic 14 years.
You could say that those Eastern European democracies were fragile to begin with, but what MAGA is so far very much successfully doing is fully matching the existing proven guidebook.
If Polymarket were legal in my country I'd actually consider betting on it.
reply