knoppix
@knoppix95@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 7 days ago
knoppix
@knoppix95@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 7 days ago
Bjørn Sætrevik
@satrevik@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
Rafael Sadowski
@sizeofvoid@bsd.network  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Rafael Sadowski
@sizeofvoid@bsd.network  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Ian Brown 👨🏻‍💻
@1br0wn@eupolicy.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Ian Brown 👨🏻‍💻
@1br0wn@eupolicy.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
Ian Brown 👨🏻‍💻
@1br0wn@eupolicy.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
Screenshot of Ian Brown's questions in the online Q&A (Slido): * Does the Commission accept this restrictive Meta interpretation? GDPR, for example, explicitly applies to data controllers OUTSIDE the EU offering services within the EU, or monitoring the behaviour of EU residents * Don't the EDPS, EDPB, and other members of the DMA high-level panel have something to say that the Commission thinks Matrix and others being forced by Meta to geolocate all their users is trivial/unproblematic?! * I thought BEREC clearly said (i ts review of the original Meta reference offer) that a separate inbox for third-party chats was not acceptable? * Given how the geolocalisation DMA interpretation of Meta is causing such damage to fair and contestable NIICS, will the EC open an investigation and then take action to remove this obstacle?
jbz
@jbz@indieweb.social  ·  activity timestamp 5 months ago
Home Login