Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Stephan Eggermont (stonsoftware@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Oct-2023 16:43:01 JST Stephan Eggermont

   • owo what's chris
   • emilygorcenski
   • Luc van Donkersgoed

   @emilygorcenski @chrisisgr8 @donkersgoed that sounds like a bad interpretation of Schrems 2. Lack of enforcement does not imply compliance

   • Embed this notice
     snaeqe (snaeqe@chaos.social)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 04:00:59 JST snaeqe

     • emilygorcenski

     @emilygorcenski

     Causa Snowden has pretty well established that this (ie requiring negative proof) is the absolutely only possible way.

   • Embed this notice
     snaeqe (snaeqe@chaos.social)'s status on Thursday, 26-Oct-2023 21:04:05 JST snaeqe

     • emilygorcenski

     @emilygorcenski
     🇺🇸 companies can't even come near proving they don't honour NSL for 🇪🇺 customer data that are unlawful here. Because they have to.
     There's no such instrument (to that degree of secrecy and disrespect for privacy and individual, especially non-🇺🇸 rights) as NSL in 🇪🇺, which can be proven by looking at law texts.

   • Embed this notice
     snaeqe (snaeqe@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 27-Oct-2023 16:26:53 JST snaeqe

     • emilygorcenski

     @emilygorcenski
     We're not talking about malfeasance like corrupt employees. You can only strive to have audit logging for any access privacy-related.
     But if your law framework literally says "This is how we will have you hand over data without any let alone proper oversight", you cannot make the same assertions that you can do if you have a law framework with pretty detailed outlines for permissible causes and how oversight is performed.