Sociopath Community

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en

When the regulation does not apply

Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.

Could this effectively a work around? 

It could only for non-EU members, but do you really want to start checking people's nationality now? And it would give an unfair advantage to non-EU members.

"Your company is service provider based outside the EU."
Couldn't we use a host provider outside of the EU? 

The host is in the US.

That changes some things doesn't it? 

"Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR."
You don't specifically target EU individuals, they just happen to be members among other populations as well. 

I do not think it means that I go and only provide service only to the EU. I think they meant it in the way I showed with the US bank. Here is another site that I had read many months ago:

https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

The site offers services to EU citizens.

We should look further into how this applies. 

How long do you figure it'd take a lawyer to look over these policies and advise us on this website's options? If it'd only take like an hour it might be worth it to finally settle years of varied confusion. 

 

It is questionable if they can only revoke it for one piece of data, not for all, but if we assume they have to revoke all of it, then they must not use the forum, as thats the only way, they give consent by using the forum. 

Maybe they can only request their doxes to be removed legally if they leave the forum. I am ok with that. We can have the vote for the people that chose to use the forum anyway. I may have to reread my TOS for this.

We ought to look further into what goes into revoking. 

I can write in the TOS that any information that is not requested to be taken down is implied consent. I already have a part that says it if they post it themselves it is not considered confidential.

This however means, they can request it to be taken down.
I do not think it is a good idea to force people to leave to have their info removed, it can be abused.

How do you see it playing out? 

TOS can't overwrite the law though, keep that in mind.

Which is why it's worth looking into what clauses do and don't exist around them. 

For instance is this even a case of "specific targeted service" is worth looking into. 

puppygirl said: 

you suck -.-

coward

The cowards are the criminals and rebels.

i guess cyberbulling and threats are banned here too?

puppygirl said: 

i guess cyberbulling and threats are banned here too?

Luna shhh, adults are talking. 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en

When the regulation does not apply

Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.

Could this effectively a work around? 

It could only for non-EU members, but do you really want to start checking people's nationality now? And it would give an unfair advantage to non-EU members.

"Your company is service provider based outside the EU."
Couldn't we use a host provider outside of the EU? 

The host is in the US.

That changes some things doesn't it?

Yeah, I have to read US laws as well lol.

"Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR."
You don't specifically target EU individuals, they just happen to be members among other populations as well. 

I do not think it means that I go and only provide service only to the EU. I think they meant it in the way I showed with the US bank. Here is another site that I had read many months ago:

https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

The site offers services to EU citizens.

We should look further into how this applies. 

How long do you figure it'd take a lawyer to look over these policies and advise us on this website's options? If it'd only take like an hour it might be worth it to finally settle years of varied confusion. 

I have no idea, but this is far too much work for me to do. It is easier to be safe from my point of view. Since we are in this together tho, anyone is free to do this inquiry, just make sure to show evidence.

It is questionable if they can only revoke it for one piece of data, not for all, but if we assume they have to revoke all of it, then they must not use the forum, as thats the only way, they give consent by using the forum. 

Maybe they can only request their doxes to be removed legally if they leave the forum. I am ok with that. We can have the vote for the people that chose to use the forum anyway. I may have to reread my TOS for this.

We ought to look further into what goes into revoking. 

I can write in the TOS that any information that is not requested to be taken down is implied consent. I already have a part that says it if they post it themselves it is not considered confidential.

This however means, they can request it to be taken down.
I do not think it is a good idea to force people to leave to have their info removed, it can be abused.

How do you see it playing out?

Someone can leave, have their info removed and rejoin later. Are we going to permaban them or re-dox them when they return? Both of those options are also annoying.

Turncoat said: 

puppygirl said: 

i guess cyberbulling and threats are banned here too?

Luna shhh, adults are talking. 

 pretty sure this counts as cyber bullying.... age related discrimination... i think i might have ptsd

i want my lawyer

puppygirl said: 

Turncoat said: 

puppygirl said: 

i guess cyberbulling and threats are banned here too?

Luna shhh, adults are talking. 

 pretty sure this counts as cyber bullying.... age related discrimination... i think i might have ptsd

i want my lawyer

You can sue TC, not the forum over that. Go right ahead.

Good said:

I have no idea, but this is far too much work for me to do. It is easier to be safe from my point of view. Since we are in this together tho, anyone is free to do this inquiry, just make sure to show evidence.

I'm actually thinking about it. It'd probably just be like an hour of his or her time I'd imagine and it'd settle a surprising number of things for future precedents. 

Someone can leave, have their info removed and rejoin later. Are we going to permaban them or re-dox them when they return?

Turncoat said: 

Good said:

I have no idea, but this is far too much work for me to do. It is easier to be safe from my point of view. Since we are in this together tho, anyone is free to do this inquiry, just make sure to show evidence.

I'm actually thinking about it. It'd probably just be like an hour of his or her time I'd imagine and it'd settle a surprising number of things for future precedents. 

That would be really cool tbh.

Someone can leave, have their info removed and rejoin later. Are we going to permaban them or re-dox them when they return?

I mean if we had to run with "doxes down on banishment" with them just making a new account and it's discovered to be the person who "left", I'd imagine a flurried response to get the removed content back up once they know as a matter of spite. 

Again though, "if we had to run with". 

Yes, but what if it doesn't, people may complain imo and it will be a lot of work for nothing (deleting all those doxes).

I propose we make a new topic, where people can up/down vote one of two solutions:

1. the one I proposed here

2. the one here, but augmented so that if someone reveals a piece of information about themselves, information reposted that may look different, but still provide the same level of intel, is OK (like sm1 posts their face and sm1 else posts another angle of their face). The problem is that you have to make sure somehow the alternative intel does not reveal any additional information.

If people vote for my idea of the solution, then we cover the legality as well.

If they vote yours, we will have to discuss it further, to ensure it is legal.

I would like to formally request screenshots of the mods chat in regards to this doxing rule so we may see the root of how this started.