zlacker

Some entity runs a webserver. This entity has a legitimate business purpose in retaining access logs for e.g. 3 months for e.g. spam and security reasons. This entity just has to document that.

This entity can allow a 3rd party service to access these logs so that 3rd party can do whatever needs to be done if it is within the reasons the entity gave for having the data.

What neither can do is go use that data for anything other than the said purposes.

And if the given reasons are gratuitous and somehow the regulators notice, expect to get a nastygram and have to comply or face fines.

Basically what you can't do is collect data for longer than you have a legitimate need for, or cash-in and sell data you've collected. Basically, all said and done, just don't be sleezy and you'll be ok.

>>willva+(OP)
Who defines what is a legitimate business purpose? Let's say I comply with all that, but someone makes a complaint and particularly bitter civil servant judges that the collection is not legitimate, because he doesn't like the content of the website?

>>merino+gI
That’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have laws in case a cop is having a bad day and follows you around writing tickets. This is a legal process like anything else: your standard should be what you’re comfortable defending in court. Being able to show a good faith decision process, compliance with common industry practice, etc. are going to help the case that any lapse was unintentional.

If your angry ex is hired by a regulator you’d appeal it but there’s no reason to think that’s a common problem.

>>acdha+bL
But appeal might take forever and by the time it is resolved you file for bankruptcy because the fine ruined the cash flow. I've seen in it many times in the EU, for example in Poland. Civil servants are immune from taking responsibility and if you manage to get any compensation you'll find yourself spending years in courts.