!FPUfgzXYWTKgIrwKxW:matrix.org

This Week in Matrix (TWIM)

244 Members
Please submit details of your Matrix projects here so we can include them in a weekly roundup blog post! ||https://matrix.org/blog/category/general/this-week-in-matrix/100 Servers

Load older messages


Timestamp Message
17 Feb 2019
19:57:46@tulir:maunium.nettulireh, I don't care
19:59:27@brendan:abolivier.bzhBrendan Abolivier (and anyway, whether data processing is legal or not isn't the topic of this room)
20:40:53@benpa:matrix.orgbenpa
In reply to @jaywink:feneas.org

Work has continue on trying to resolve MSC1194

Missing a dot at the end.

(crosses fingers for points)

++
20:40:58@benpa:matrix.orgbenpa
In reply to @kitsune:matrix.org

Work has continue on trying to resolve MSC1194

Also "Work continues" or "work has continued".

++
20:41:33@benpa:matrix.orgbenpa
In reply to @aaron:raim.ist
Maybe not but it seems like surely someone has more karma than me at this point
I'm not sure. you had a mad run a few months ago
20:43:51@benpa:matrix.orgbenpa
In reply to @rschulman:westwork.org
Its a reasonable request under GDPR for sure. The whole "30 days, until then I'm leaving this channel" was a bit odd.
escalated 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:maunium.nettulirI removed their user ID from the db and made it not add that ID to the db anymore
20:44:29@kythyria:berigora.netkythyria

Take git for example, your user information is permanently embedded in the DAG after you make a commit, and since removing it after that point would break git functionality then GDPR law permits such data to remain even after a request to be forgotten.

As I understood it, it allows that mainly because git already exists.

20:45:08@tulir:maunium.nettulirthe 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:berigora.netkythyriaOr they really didn't think about that loophole.
20:45:36@benpa:matrix.orgbenpa
In reply to @tulir:maunium.net
I removed their user ID from the db and made it not add that ID to the db anymore
täysi
20:46:06@kythyria:berigora.netkythyria(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.bzhBrendan Abolivier
In reply to @kythyria:berigora.net

Take git for example, your user information is permanently embedded in the DAG after you make a commit, and since removing it after that point would break git functionality then GDPR law permits such data to remain even after a request to be forgotten.

As I understood it, it allows that mainly because git already exists.

GDPR 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.bzhBrendan AbolivierRegardlerss of whether the said system existed before GDPR or not
20:50:13@kythyria:berigora.netkythyria(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.bzhBrendan AbolivierErr, *regardless, even
20:50:26@kythyria:berigora.netkythyriaThat seems like a huge loophole.
21:05:14@willem:canarymod.netWillemNot at all, this prevents unworkable situations
21:05:56@kythyria:berigora.netkythyriaIt means you can create your system in such a way that delete requests are impossible just so you don't have to process them.
21:06:50@willem:canarymod.netWillem
In reply to @kythyria:berigora.net
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.
It has to be a technical impossibility
21:07:06@willem:canarymod.netWillem At least, that's how I interpreted it
21:07:22@kythyria:berigora.netkythyriaYes.
21:22:28@matthew:matrix.orgMatthewlet’s take gdpr discussion out of here, please
21:23:01@andrewm:amorgan.xyzanoaI believe #gdpr:disroot.org was mentioned above.
21:33:17@ace:kittenface.studioAnanaceGDPR discussion, also known as bikeshedding 2.0
21:43:40@krixano:amorgan.xyzkrixanoYou 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.
21:44:49@andrewm:amorgan.xyzanoa
In reply to @krixano:amorgan.xyz
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.
We 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:half-shot.ukHalf-ShotI 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:half-shot.ukHalf-Shots/peeking/peeking over federation/
21:46:45@sed:maunium.netS. 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.


There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room List