1·
28 days ago@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de
Do you also have arguments? Or is your highly toxic behavior an admission of your error?
@schroedingershund@vivaldi.net
Mathias Hasselmann
Auch wenn’s nicht so scheint, weil ich im Detail widerspreche: In der Sache an sich sind wir uns vielleicht sogar einig.
Pronouns: he/him
Linguas: DE, EN, FR
- 0 Posts
- 9 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: April 26th, 2022
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
@kuketzblog @schroedingershund The term “personal data” is well defined within the scope of the GDPR. You might not like the definition of “personal data” within the scope of the GDPR, but then you have to change the GDPR first, instead of using a random definition for random laws.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de @schroedingershund@vivaldi.net
Actually I did. Did you?
“Dieses Gesetz regelt […] besondere Vorschriften zum Schutz personenbezogener Daten bei der Nutzung von Telekommunikationsdiensten und digitalen Diensten […] den Schutz der Privatsphäre […] den Schutz der Privatsphäre”
Privacy and personal data. That’s the scope.
Data that’s not personal data is out of scope.
Even more if other laws like GDPR explicitly allow processing of such data.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de @schroedingershund@vivaldi.net
Actually I did. Did you?
“Dieses Gesetz regelt […] besondere Vorschriften zum Schutz personenbezogener Daten bei der Nutzung von Telekommunikationsdiensten und digitalen Diensten […] den Schutz der Privatsphäre […] den Schutz der Privatsphäre”
Privacy and personal data. That’s the scope. Data that’s not personal data is out of scope. Evenmore if other laws like GDPR explicitly allows processing such data.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de @schroedingershund@vivaldi.net Laws have a scope and the scope of TDDDG is defined in its first section. You don’t do anyone a favour if you randomly extend the scope of laws just to support your point of view.
You don’t help these you want to protect by making false promises.
You won’t get the Thunderbird people to change what’s in there legitimate interested and perfectly legal.
You simply don’t make the world a better place by inventing false accussions. It’s just another step down.
@schroedingershund @kuketzblog I absolutely dislike the concept of blaming entities by gut feeling even if they behave entirely legal.
They key for reliable privacy laws is general acceptance. It’s of absolutely no value to have strict laws if nobody obeys them.
The GDPR and the ammending TDDDG do pretty well in balancing interests, and we don’t do privacy activism or IT security a favor if we deny operators legitimate interest out of gut feeling.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de I believe your interpretation of § 25 TDDDG is too broad: § 1 TDDDG limits the scope of this law to personal data (“personenbezogene Daten”). Model, vendor, CPU, as you write yourself, is not personal data.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de @thunderbird@mastodon.online Wouldn’t it be sufficient to remove the “client_id” field? With that field removed Thunderbird would provide useful information to the developers, but still leak less information than any website visit.
@kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de By that interpretation the TTDSG would be in conflict with GDPR, which explicitly allows such data processing if there is a legitimate interest.