hugoroy

7 ms·

1.
by hugoroy 3y ago
> The EU isn't a super-state True whatever that means :) > and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity. It is. EU law as a whole is ultimately applied by an entity, the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is o
2.
by hugoroy 3y ago
My guess is that Mozilla only looked at the US market, and the article does not mention that this is US-only.
3.
by hugoroy 3y ago
Here's how it goes: You develop X and distribute it to B. B modifies X (becomes X.1) and because B has been well advised by lawyers, B knows that modification of software is an act restricted under copyright law, and so B went to go re
4.
by hugoroy 3y ago
The analysis is wrong even if we accept the flawed premise presented (whether in US or French law). Section 13 of the AGPL which is the one the author says is ineffective starts: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if
5.
by hugoroy 3y ago
Random post on the internet by what seems a a nonlawyer. Be careful. "The AGPL, like the GPL, is a copyright licence, not a contract" actual authoriative legal source needed. For what it's worth, this is plain wrong under Fre
6.
by hugoroy 4y ago
There are no personalised ads or no ads at all in WhatsApp, are there? What got rejected is using the data for "service improvement" and "security" - in particular how WhatsApp used personal data for these purposes, and
7.
by hugoroy 4y ago
So many wrong things in this comment, which is generally uncalled for given the article is quite good (which cannot be said of all GDPR related coverage). So, duty calls[1]: > This decision is from the Irish data privacy regulator, DPC.
8.
by hugoroy 4y ago
I doubt you actually asked any lawyers who know this stuff. While GDPR did raise the threshold of valid consent, the interpretation before the GDPR was nowhere near what you describe here. There are authority guidelines and sanctions predat
9.
by hugoroy 4y ago
You're quoting the 2002 adopted text's recital. This is outdated. The relevant bit about consent and cookies was added in 2009, with directive 2009/136 modifying article 5(3) of directive 2002/58. So all you're sayi
10.
Terms of Service; Didn’t Read(tosdr.org)
188 points by hugoroy 6y ago|168 comments
11.
by hugoroy 6y ago
For the record, the FSFE published a response here: https://fsfe.org/about/statement-20201220.html > [...] we felt it necessary to state unequivocally that this post does not reflect the reality of the facts and con
12.
User Data Manifesto v2.0(userdatamanifesto.org)
2 points by hugoroy 6y ago|0 comments
13.
by hugoroy 6y ago
This is the press release, edited by the services of the court - this is not written by the judges.
14.
by hugoroy 6y ago
The judgment is here: https://noyb.eu/files/CJEU/judgment.pdf Start at page 28 if you want to skip the recap of EU law, or start at page 35 if you want to skip the details of US law and surveillance programs as re
15.
by hugoroy 6y ago
Yes. Check out https://gdprhub.eu/ The most important fine so far is against Google (50 million EUR - for France only, not for the whole of the EU territory). [CNIL info in English here]( https://www.cnil.fr/
16.
by hugoroy 6y ago
Sorry that it's not clear. Happy to take suggestions for clearer language. Maybe this part should just be removed as it is maybe a bit off topic. I am trying to lay out what principle Richard Stallman is advocating for exactly, when he
17.
by hugoroy 6y ago
Hi - author of the post here. The points in the post are really about GDPR basics . I'm not actually trying to explain or interpret anything. Instead, I am mostly paraphrasing, if not merely quoting the GDPR directly (and linking to t
18.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Explained by Americans(hroy.eu)
3 points by hugoroy 6y ago|0 comments
19.
by hugoroy 7y ago
That's because the newspaper and the search engine have very different kinds of activities when it comes to processing data. In 2014, this is how the Court explains it (my emphasis): "35 In this connection, it should be point
20.
by hugoroy 7y ago
This comes from a [EU Court 2014 Ruling][1] based on Spain's implementation of European Union Directive 95/46 from 1995 which has nothing to do with what you're talking about. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/juris
21.
by hugoroy 7y ago
> My problem is that they want to enforce this law worldwide The point really is: how to protect or remedy against the privacy infringement felt by someone in France's jurisdiction? And what the EU Court is saying at point 72 is: EU
22.
by hugoroy 7y ago
I don't really think France's judges power really has an influence on what's stopping, or not stopping, China. China is not waiting for this ruling to try to do just that. It's up to operators like Google to decide wheth
23.
by hugoroy 7y ago
A few comments/explanations on that ruling: 1. It is not the end of the case -- this ruling is from the European Union law's top court (the CJEU) to give the ultimate interpretation of European Union law on the topic. 2. The case
24.
by hugoroy 7y ago
This "crux" misses point 72 of the ruling which states that EU law does not prohibit national law from (a) finding a different balance between privacy and freedom of expression and, thus, from (b) requiring the de-listing of the r
25.
by hugoroy 7y ago
This is based on the law applicable before the GDPR. That French law dates from 2004 and implements EU law from 1995.
26.
Reuse: Open Source Developer best practices for license and copyright info(reuse.software)
1 points by hugoroy 9y ago|0 comments
27.
Astroid, a GTK/webkit mail user agent usable with the keyboard(gaute.vetsj.com)
3 points by hugoroy 9y ago|0 comments
28.
User Data Manifesto (2.0)(userdatamanifesto.org)
4 points by hugoroy 11y ago|0 comments
29.
by hugoroy 12y ago
Yes, I am a lawyer.
30.
by hugoroy 12y ago
full disclosure: I have exactly 0 copyright in GNU software.

More ›