"Facebook changed every post by those users during the affected time period to private, including posts that people may have meant to share publicly. The company told CNN it took five days to make those changes."
The headline and the article seem to be contradictory. Anyone know if the article is wrong or the headline is wrong? It looks like it just might be that paragraph that got it backwards since there is a direct quote later that talks about posts being automatically suggested as public.
"If the Data Subject, moves out of the EU border [...], or goes on holiday then their personal data processed under these circumstances is not covered by the GDPR and they are no longer a Data Subject in the context of the GDPR, unless the organisation is “established” in the EU"
This is an incredibly unfair conclusion. Beyond the time it would make it to make the actual technical changes, he's right in saying that GDPR is written in a very ambiguous way that is going to open up the possibility of litigation that smaller shops will not be equipped to absorb. He's made a calculated decision that for him personally it is not worth the additional legal/financial risk to continue operating the business. GDPR is complicated and we dont know what the enforcement side is going to look like yet.
It's really funny because the blog post is far more ambiguous than the GDPR. He cites no specific provision of the GDPR, he doesn't quote the law, all he does is offer up the big scary $20m number.
It's pure FUD.
But since we're throwing out wild speculations it's more than possible this guy was doing something really shady. (He admits to affiliate links which are perfectly fine under GDPR). There would definitely be a market for user data even about who's borrowing what, where. Certainly the vast majority of these "the GDPR killed our free business" are precisely these shady businesses who knew they were dead anyways if they had to actually ask their users for consent in plain language.
It's about risk management. In this case they decided to take on the risk of account information leaking by not verifying the address instead of the risk to account conversions. The former shows more care toward their users and the latter shows more care to their bottom line. You can argue which is the right decision all day long but ultimately is a question of risk tolerance.
Sounds like they lost the center core (might just mean the signal its not clear), hell of a showing though the team should be really proud of the accomplishment.
Sounds like they lost the center core (might just mean the signal its not clear), hell of a showing though the team should be really proud of the accomplishment.
The announcer addressed this, he said that he footage was not the same but looked similar because of the proximity of the boosters to each other. I think they were just extremely well choreographed. If you watched the side view from the landing pad they landed at almost exactly the same time.
Ah you're right. If you go back a few seconds you can see its using different camera angles. I'm guessing they just accidentally switched both to the same booster for the landing shot.
Its an easy mistake to make. Given they seem to use Livestream i am going to go out on a limb that they also use Livestream Studio....great software but when you are setting up PiP and copy and paste it is incredibly easy to forget to change the input source on the second frame.
The best approach is to make it the exception not the rule. This ultimately protects everyone and provides a nice paper trail in the event something does happen and needs to be audited. You can partially mitigate the bad actor problem by putting safe guards in place to make sure all changes have to be peer reviewed before shipping.
The headline and the article seem to be contradictory. Anyone know if the article is wrong or the headline is wrong? It looks like it just might be that paragraph that got it backwards since there is a direct quote later that talks about posts being automatically suggested as public.