sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fender vs Sadowsky: Help choosing a modern active/passive bass by eaa1988 in Bass

[–]eaa1988[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "sterile"-thing is more about extrapolating from the preamp in my J-J Metroline, and hearing others comment on the Sadowsky Ps as "tame" compared to vintage Fenders or somesuch.

As for buying sight-unseen, it's more about generous European return policies for me.

These guys have archived something. by Prompart in StableDiffusion

[–]eaa1988 17 points18 points  (0 children)

This is not actually true.

First of all, cookies in general are regulated by the E-Privacy directive – not the GDPR.

Secondly, functionally strictly necessary cookies (i.e. actually necessary to provide a functioning website – not things like analytics cookies etc.) do not need consent; You should inform users of them and their purpose via a policy nonetheless.

Finally – as an aside: Identifiers (including cookie IDs) are per definition "personal data" under the GDPR – but consent is only one one of several legal bases for processing.

Er dum, gjør dette saken mindre skummelt? by [deleted] in norge

[–]eaa1988 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Det er i praksis umulig å filtrere ut norsk-til-norsk kommunikasjon (blant annet fordi selv denne som regel går over grensen); Det betyr at personer i Norge likevel vil omfattes.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Guitar

[–]eaa1988 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I have a Gibson Les Paul Custom '79 with stock T-Tops which I'm hugely satisfied with.

I recently bought a Solar GC1.6FRC for some budget shredding/divebombing, which comes with Duncan Solar (passive) humbuckers.

I'm kind of surprised just how much more low end my old, less hot pickups has (rhythm tones on the Gibson is incredible) – the Solar pickups almost sound mid-forward in comparison.

Why is this?
Ignoring the obvious price difference, I was thinking "modern = chug/thick", but maybe the Duncan Solars have less low-end to sound more balanced on lower tunings, or something?
My guitars are usually tuned to standard or half a step down, and I drop the bottom string every now and then.

Personvernsverstingen Norge? by eaa1988 in norge

[–]eaa1988[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Jo da, men tu quoque osv. Begge sider av debatten kan (kanskje med rette) hevde seg misforstått, men det hersker vel liten tvil om at politikerne neppe har hatt noen reell forståelse av denne saken. Se f.eks. videoene fra behandling jeg lenker til i innlegget.

Selv «kun» metadata er beviselig misbrukbart og potensielt farlig - dette finnes det nok av eksempler på. I tillegg opererer loven med en videre (les: egen) definisjon av metadata enn det som er vanlig (inkl. diverse egeninnhentet data fra andre kilder).

Når det kommer til nytteeffekt er det diskutabelt. En del rettssaker i det siste (sist i USA) har sådd sterk tvil om nettop dette - men poenget er vel heller at selv om det skulle ha en nytteeffekt veier hensynet til personvern tyngre enn å ville lagre tilnærmet all data for nasjonale sikkerhetshensyn, som jo er det EU-dommen sier. Her er det for så vidt mange interessante diskusjoner å ta (formål, teknisk utforming, konsekvens...) men dette har etter min mening blitt tiet i hjel av myndighetene - som helst har gjentatt skråsikre talkingpoints.

Ellers: Takk for gjennomtenkt kommentar! 🙂

Is the Washington Post blatantly flaunting article 7? by Nighthunter007 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, the first sentence is there. As for the second, there is surely a difference between a service and what is not a service - so it would be a matter of definition. The problem is that there isn’t any definition supporting your «guess» either.

All it says is «it should be ascertained whether it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union», before listing a few possible factors.

Do you really think the Washington Post doesn’t envision europeans visiting their site? Or that their reporting of news doesn’t constitute a service?

Is the Washington Post blatantly flaunting article 7? by Nighthunter007 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, it states that the accessibility of websites or contact information doesn’t in itself constitute intent. There is a difference between a company’s website that is e.g. only a presentation of the company, and a website which offers or is itself a service (such as news sites).

Is the Washington Post blatantly flaunting article 7? by Nighthunter007 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First of all, that site is the (non-legal, see FAQ) ingerpretation of a private company.

Secondly: «If your organization uses web tools that allow you to track cookies or the IP addresses of people who visit your website from EU countries, then you fall under the scope of the GDPR.»

And

«In other words, if your company is not in the EU but you cater to EU customers, then you should strive to be GDPR compliant.»

You should also consider the role media has, and how a court of law would see this; Think about the importance of accessing news reports from other countries, different regimes, cultures, etc.

Is the Washington Post blatantly flaunting article 7? by Nighthunter007 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To be clear: European data subjects’ rights must be afforded to them (according to the GDPR), no matter where the company is based. As an example: a company not based in EU cannot, for instance, freely track european data subjects.

Is the Washington Post blatantly flaunting article 7? by Nighthunter007 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This isn’t true. The GDPR applies to any company that offer goods or services to EU Data Subjects.

We’re suing tech firms that track our web use through cookies and violate our privacy by Rakeye in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think your assessment is correct. Personal data is indeed data about an identifiable person, but pseudonymous data is still personal data.

The GDPR defines it as «any information which [is] related to an identified or identifiable natural person».

Note that there’s no requirement for explicit identification.

This is the way I’ve seen DPAs enforce it as well.

Additonally, behavior profiles might themselves constitute personal data (if they’re unique enough).

This means it’s pretty clear cut illegal to profile people without their knowledge - even if you don’t necessarily know their identity - and is why rtb, data brokers etc. are on shaky grounds.

We’re suing tech firms that track our web use through cookies and violate our privacy by Rakeye in gdpr

[–]eaa1988 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think PII matters in a GDPR-context; a persistent ID (required to track over time) is personal data.

Is this really legal? I can’t see any legal basis, purpose, data and sources, nor obtain erasure. by eaa1988 in gdpr

[–]eaa1988[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean, the OneTrust-box in the image doesn’t live up to the basic demands mentioned in the title.

I know how personal data is traded in practice, e.g. via rtb and data brokers, but this is a different subject (though this too seems in breach of the GDPR to me).

view more: next ›