Premium suckers tax
The printers realise that only absolute incompetents would plow on regardless with a useless withdrawal agreement, they can charge whatever they like.
19 posts • joined 1 Jun 2018
"Google does the targeting, the advertiser never see the actual personal data. so it isn't nor the controller nor the processor - Google is both."
Technically, Google is just the controller in the example you give, there is no processor.
The controller is responsible for compliance with the principles of processing of personal data under it's control. If an processor were acting on Google's behalf, it would act only on Google's instruction, so the big G carries the can (unless the processor acts outside of those instructions).
It would be more likely if there were sharing of identifiable information with an advertiser, that both are controllers (rather than controller-processor) and so both are equally responsible for their own processing activities.
I agree, the business models that ad industry and consumer web services like Google have put in place are heavily dependent on data slurping. When regulation under GDPR and other DP laws start to have an effect, they may use that to move to a more freemium type of model for some services, or charge more for products e.g. Android devices, if that source of revenue is to be undercut.
"We aren't talking about removing it from the net. We are talking about removing it from google."
Yes and no. This particular case (you're right) is about de-referencing from Google search results and extending that requirement globally. The issue for free speech etc. is that it sets a precedent for someone using that same right in the same way when it comes to the source material.
"The company would be similarly liable, if the employee started using their private device for WhatsApp and simply copied their work contacts over, or worse, connected their private device to the company groupware system..."
If the employee breaks company rules to do that (which they would be now that Continental's policy says so) they would be personally liable, both wrt the GDPR and to their company (for "stealing" commercial information)
She "failed to mention the record £400,000 fine subsequently levied at the firm by the Information Commissioner's Office. El Reg asked Harding whether TalkTalk would have survived had the GDPR been in place at the time."
The ICO hadn't used the maximum amount available to them at the time so why would a higher ceiling make any difference?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019