They'll put them on naughty list that will be enforced by financial institutions, i.e. it will be an infraction for credit card operators to process such a payment. Financial operators have well oiled compliance facilities and the payment won't clear. If Temu won't get the money, they won't ship the parcel. And if they won't ship, then there will be a bit less carcinogens in EU. Good stuff.
It's actually both: they handed one-time fine for past behaviour (about 200 M€, not final, can and most likely will be appealed and paid in like 10 years or so; cf. Apple tax breaks in Ireland); and threatening more fines if they don't play along in the future. One of the kinds of punishment that Commision can slap (subject to court oversight, ofc) is „daily fines”, which is a fine that accumulates with constant daily rate up to the date the company complies, or some pre-set maximum, which usually calculates to several months, and need to be reissued afterwards (which is an opportunity to double the daily amount, and again, can be appealed to a court).
In my world people are innocent until proven guilty before a court of law, twice. Yes, even business people. Executive branch shouldn't be able to just bankrupt a company and tell the owners to go through the courts to maybe recover the money in 10 years, if they're innocent after all.
There were several such cases in my country before we joined EU, most high profile one was against Optimus SA (predecessor to CD Projekt), where they just took people's money, without cause as they courts later found. Never again.
So the middle ground is, Temu can choose to play hardball all the way to ECJ, but if they are wrong (they are and they know it), the cost will be substantial (200 M€ + interest + daily fines + interest). So I think they'll enter talks, pay 200 M€ and pinky promise to delist offending items.
Just to be clear, you're so desperate to disagree with me or be contrary that you're saying that people need to be convicted by a court twice for the same crime for real justice to be properly served?
They cetainly get to argue before two sets of judges. Otherwise it's not justice.
I wanted to make clear that press release is not a valid substitute for a court order. And it's OK to publish one before the final instance issues it's verdict.
Organic Maps works. I have not tried any other alternative.
You may have to enable developer mode in the Android Auto settings, then enable Unknown Sources in the developer settings.
It's npm that's affected, therefore it's not even considered when choosing language/ecosystem for writing distro tools. You'll find no sane distro writing package manager in javascript precisely to avoid this joke of a supply chain.
I quite like the OpenBSD approach to Go and Rust projects in ports. They store all the dependencies and their hashes in the build recipe, not trusting the project ones. And they’re more readable.
Here is jujutsu’s list of dependencies[0] and their hashes[1]. As an aside, that’s why I don’t like those packages managers. Something like Python’s numpy or lib curl, get sliced into atomic portions.
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.
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.
"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
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.
reply