Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
PSA: Sharing that information was almost certainly a GDPR violation in the EU. It may also have been a criminal offense under German law (§126a StGB).
Personal data in official documents which police reports falls under are explicitly excluded by article 86.
Not quite. Such official documents may be published by the government, but only if provided by law. It doesn't mean that the data may be used by others.
EU data protection activists are fighting against such transparency rules. I'm thinking of Noyb's lawsuit against the Swedish government, in particular. Sweden has a very strong tradition of transparency.
That German law was explicitly made to criminalize such lists compiled from public data. If the context suggests that the information is meant to enable illegal harm to the people, then it's criminal to publish the information. In the German understanding, that is fighting Nazis because Nazis create such lists of their enemies.
Sharing publicly available information is a GDPR violation? Wouldn't that be on the person who originally made the info public.
GDPR works like copyright in that regard. Just because someone publishes something, doesn't mean you may re-publish it.
This data is especially problematic since it is about people's political views. That's defined as sensitive data. By default, it is a violation to even create or store such data at all, even if you kept it private. You could only do that legally if you benefit from specific exceptions.
Please gtfo with those nasty facts. This is Lemmy.