|17 Feb 2019|
|19:57:46||tulir||eh, I don't care|
|19:59:27||Brendan Abolivier||(and anyway, whether data processing is legal or not isn't the topic of this room)|
In reply to @jaywink:feneas.org++
In reply to @kitsune:matrix.org++
In reply to @aaron:raim.istI'm not sure. you had a mad run a few months ago
In reply to @rschulman:westwork.orgescalated very quickly indeed! unless tulir has a specific plan, I'm not even sure we need any changes - just remove the particular points from the DB and I'll remember to not give points to people who don't want them
|20:44:24||tulir||I removed their user ID from the db and made it not add that ID to the db anymore|
As I understood it, it allows that mainly because git already exists.
|20:45:08||tulir||the points still exist and you don't necessarily have to stop giving points to them, the points just won't be associated with any user|
|20:45:11||kythyria||Or they really didn't think about that loophole.|
In reply to @tulir:maunium.nettäysi
|20:46:06||kythyria||(I half suspect that the point of the GDPR is actually to increase privacy by making it so everyone is too confused to create any new systems)|
|20:49:32||Brendan Abolivier|| |
In reply to @kythyria:berigora.netGDPR indeed includes an exception if you can justify that the data process is a technical requirement for the system the user signed up for to work (I believe git falls in that category)
|20:49:57||Brendan Abolivier||Regardlerss of whether the said system existed before GDPR or not|
|20:50:13||kythyria||(also that the definition of "can be used to identify a user" and "request removal" is purposefully impossibly broad. Particularly in the latter case: the UK government's interpretation is pretty much that you can hand a post-it note in beautiful 18th century court hand to the janitor and then sue the company for not processing it.|
|20:50:13||Brendan Abolivier||Err, *regardless, even|
|20:50:26||kythyria||That seems like a huge loophole.|
|21:05:14||Willem||Not at all, this prevents unworkable situations|
|21:05:56||kythyria||It means you can create your system in such a way that delete requests are impossible just so you don't have to process them.|
In reply to @kythyria:berigora.netIt has to be a technical impossibility
|21:07:06||Willem||At least, that's how I interpreted it|
|21:22:28||Matthew||let’s take gdpr discussion out of here, please|
|21:23:01||anoa||I believe #gdpr:disroot.org was mentioned above.|
|21:33:17||Ananace||GDPR discussion, also known as bikeshedding 2.0|
|21:43:40||krixano||You can, when someone clicks to join a room, list the bots that are a part of that room with a confirmation. Additionally, the ability to prevent specific users from seeing your messages (like a block feature) would also help.|
In reply to @krixano:amorgan.xyzWe don't want to add confusion by split-braining a room. If you send a message with a room with certain participants, you agree to those participants seeing that message.
|21:46:10||Half-Shot||I think membership is shown when you click on a room, though bot/bridge highlighting would be nice. It's not however when peeking. What anoa said for the latter.|
|21:46:28||Half-Shot||s/peeking/peeking over federation/|
|21:46:45||S. Edbot|| |
In reply to@Half-Shot:half-shot.ukI think membership is shown when you click on a room, though bot/bridge highlighting would be nice. It's not however when peeking. What anoa said for the latter.
I think membership is shown when you click on a room, though bot/bridge highlighting would be nice. It's not however when peeking over federation. What anoa said for the latter.