For anyone not very familiar with copyleft, the actual goal is:
> My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. [1]
Free as in freedom for the users of the software to control, audit, and modify what runs on their hardware.
The stipulations are there to prevent people who aren't aligned with those goals from benefiting from (and working against) the work done by the community that believes in those goals.
It's easy to give the lie to this, because the restriction they are unhappy with is the restriction against restricting others. Anyone complaining about that is just masking a demand of "free for me, but not for thee" - definitely _not_ "totally unrestricted."
> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.
From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice.
It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.
Not allowing businesses to fire customers who don't want to share anything sounds like a massive problem for companies who's revenue model depends on user info. Think of all the people who don't want to share anything but still aren't willing to type in CC info for facebook, are they entitled to free facebook use on the companies' dime?
Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely.
The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?
The rest of what you wrote is silly. Social media websites are not charities. They don't have to provide you with a service if you are not willing to compensate them with your data.
Personal data is not the only form of compensation, and GDPR is a direct response to the situation that attitude has created.
Nobody is suggesting companies provide free services. We're saying that personal data is more than commodity, and we should be looking to more ethical business models. And we won't be sad to lose companies that can't adapt.
edit: And I don't think my point was silly, but I'm also not really libertarian. So I don't think it's acceptable for companies to abuse their dominant position to make things worse for society at large.
You're making a philosophical argument about what is a "real choice", precisely the problem with the "based-on-principle" GDPR. All this will do is create a big mess if/when this gets into real litigation.
If you use a third-party, they would be acting as your data processor. You'd need to make sure you have a contract with them that ensures they're respecting GDPR as well.
I agree with others that you should self-host whenever possible. It will simplify these questions and you'll be able to fully protect your users' data yourself.
I would. Better to be overly cautious if you're serious about protecting user data and privacy.
IPs specifically are quite likely to reveal some identifying info, and it's obvious how trivial it is to find that info. Even the company itself isn't looking that info up, losing that info could expose their users.
IIRC Bank of America lost a class-action lawsuit over this practice. I didn't opt-in to overdraft protection precisely because of stuff like this. I'd rather just be denied.
I got hit with several overdrafts after some tickets I purchased finally got charged a month after I purchased them. Even better was that I never got any text messages to warn me. I set up alerts for low balances and whatnot, and somehow this was the one day it failed to work. If it had, I would have transferred money from another account and avoided any problems. I've been meaning to find a new bank (or credit union) since.
Used Apple products do hold their value better than anything - personally I think people pay way too much for used Apple gear, but hey, they have their high-end niche and people are willing to pay for it.
But to say that selling his computer would net him little more than the Windows license is absurd. It wouldn't be Apple resale prices, but he should definitely be able to get %50 back. He'd get the most value by parting out the system.
So what you’re saying is that, of the $850, he’d be able to recoup $425, as long he’s willing to take the computer apart, put all the components back in their boxes (assuming he kept those), listing all the components as separate ads (writing descriptions, taking pictures), communicating with all the buyers and sending out a dozen packages to separate addresses? They will easily take 20 hours. Unless his time is worth less than $22 per hour, he’d be losing money by selling the computer as parts.
I think USPS is basically the same way. I just shipped something with Signature Confirmation. The only thing I needed was the tracking number, and then I could sign up to receive an email with the signature in a PDF. Maybe you have to sign up before it's delivered though.
> My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. [1]
Free as in freedom for the users of the software to control, audit, and modify what runs on their hardware.
The stipulations are there to prevent people who aren't aligned with those goals from benefiting from (and working against) the work done by the community that believes in those goals.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html