zlacker

>>grabeh+(OP)
For those of you understandably intimidated by the GDPR regulations themselves, here's a good summary in plain English: https://blog.varonis.com/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain-eng...

The UK's ICO also has a good structured summary: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

In general I agree with the sentiments in this article. I've probably spent a total of three to four days reading around the GDPR and I don't really see what's special about this law other than it's imposing decent standards on what was in effect a wildly unregulated industry in people's personal data. If you have a broad distrust of any government activity then I suppose any new laws with "fines up to €X" might feel like "I run a small site on a Digital Ocean droplet and I'm at risk of a €2m fine out of the blue." But that doesn't make it true.

>>frereu+N2
I am concerned that the effect of this legislation on the private individual is the opposite of the stated intention.

People are being forced to sign agreements which jeopardise the natural rights to their data which they would otherwise have.

One example: a friend who has a very pretty daughter was asked by her school to give them the right to film her and to use any and all such recordings as they see fit for 50 years even after she leaves the school.

This feels very wrong on just about all the conceivable levels.

>>Sagely+28
Under the GDPR, consent must be revokable, at any time, and as easy to withdraw consent as to give it. So you could sign that. Then 5 minutes later withdraw consent.

Additionally consent must be "freely given". If you would be punished (e.g. expelled from school) then you haven't given consent, so they can't use it.

>>rmc+7k
"freely given" is not a very clear concept in these circumstances. Parents do not want to antagonise the school and/or put their child at some kind of disadvantage, so they sign. Is that still "freely given"? It looks like GDPR is being used (as an excuse?) to make parents sign things which otherwise they might not. I hear you say that that is not the problem of GDPR and you can withdraw your consent later but how many will know that or remember to do so?

From the above "school might have to reprint all its publicity materials if consent is withdrawn" it is clear that this would be viewed as being antagonistic towards the school and its interests.

>>Sagely+Jm
> Parents do not want to antagonise the school and/or put their child at some kind of disadvantage, so they sign. Is that still "freely given"?

That's a good point, and there might be a court case about that. I agree that the parent probably doesn't have enough free choice. If the law was to say "That isn't freely given", then the school doesn't have consent, so they can't use the images!. That's the beauty of it. It's a different legal viewpoint than "signed contract uber alles". DPA should look at if you had real consent.

> it is clear that this would be viewed as being antagonistic towards the school and its interests.

Good? The whole point of the GDPR & EU data protection law is to push the pendulum the other way, because it's gone too far. If someone can come up and force them to reprint everything, and then someone else force them to reprint everything, well maybe they should collect less personal data? If they didn't collect personal data, they wouldn't have this risk. EU law is trying to discourage massive data collection.