> Notice it says “should”, not shall. Does this mean consent is technically optional?
Does it mean you never actually read the law? Does it mean you assume that the words of an HN user are a direct quote for the law? Does it mean that any statements you make about the law are false and misleading because you never read the law and rely on misinterpretation of the words of strangers to paint a picture of what the law is about?
The law does not deal in "should"s.
Scroll down to "suitable articles" to see what the law actually says, and not what you think it says: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ Start with definitions and work your way through the referenced articles
To clarify, if I'm not mistaken, out of 422 shoulds in the document 420 are in Chapter I, "General Provisions which:
- spells out more-or-less in layman terms why the law exists, its scope and applications
- definitions that will be used throughout the document
There are two shoulds used in the rest of the regulation, in Article 47.1(j). IMO that has to be shall, too, but it's in a large list of other binding corporate rules, so it's not too bad.
Does it mean you never actually read the law? Does it mean you assume that the words of an HN user are a direct quote for the law? Does it mean that any statements you make about the law are false and misleading because you never read the law and rely on misinterpretation of the words of strangers to paint a picture of what the law is about?
The law does not deal in "should"s.
Scroll down to "suitable articles" to see what the law actually says, and not what you think it says: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ Start with definitions and work your way through the referenced articles