zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
People seem to forget that the more legislation there is around something the more it is only feasible to do if you are a corporate person. Human persons just don't have the same rights or protections from liabilty.

>>superk+55
It's not like there are laws that are more lenient with non-profits or with tiny companies right?

>>mattig+O6
The EU's digital markets act is one that got that right and I love it. But it's the exception to the rule. The vast majority of such laws are for the benefit of the corporations themselves, despite any ostensible purposes. And this is definitely in that latter category.

>>superk+f7
Also a lot of other EU regulations do the same.

Sometimes it's explicitly mentioned but oftentimes it's behind "appropriate and proportionate measures"

>>Vespas+j9
But most don't. GDPR for example. It's pretty wack that random people coming to my neighborhood BBQ can demand I give them the backyard surveillance camera recording or force me to delete it (a metaphor for a personal website logs). Such makes perfect sense for a corporation but none when applied to a human person and context.

We should make the laws for our digital spaces for human person use cases first, not corporate person use cases. Even if it's in the sense of trying to protect humans from corporations.

>>superk+na
Good news:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity;

>>hyperm+ug
That does not include security cameras: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-usi...