Talk:1998: GDPR
This comic is a joke privacy policy, playing off a few things.
Everyone right now is updating their privacy policy to meet the new requirements from the European Union coming into effect today, 2018-05-25, the GDPR. Link to wikipedia: [1].
It also is pointing out that no one ever reads them "by using this website you opt in to quartering troops in your home", something you probably did not agree to.
--Fwacer (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your wording "joke privacy policy" is really good and you should add it to the existing explanation. Lassombra (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately, this doesn't appear to supersede the Shadow Proclamation. Also, I wouldn't mind quartering troops in my home if they were sexy... 172.68.90.82 20:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf
I wonder if this is the privacy policy of Beret Guy's company since he mentioned in the last comic that people keep sending them personal info even though they had asked them to stop.--172.69.42.112 21:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What's the deal with the "Created by a Bot" coming up with relevant jokes as to what the explanation was created by? I didn't search exhaustively, but couldn't find any hints in other discussion pages. Is there a link to a discussion on this? Who did this? Dgbrt? I'm very curious. 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) -- DanB (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I've written the program creating the new pages when a new comic is out. It's run by the profile DgbrtBOT. This ensures that all comic pages look similar, the navigation works, and more. --Dgbrt (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see that now. But didn't it used to just say "Created by a bot" and not "Created by something relevant"? Or has it always done that and I missed it? Is it a reference to a comic, or just something fun? Thanks for all your work on this site, by the way. DanB (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- The original text is: "Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon." Check the history. And when a new comic is out there is always a race about being the first to change the word BOT to something else. It was funny when that happened first, but as every joke it isn't funny anymore when it's overused. --Dgbrt (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see that now. But didn't it used to just say "Created by a bot" and not "Created by something relevant"? Or has it always done that and I missed it? Is it a reference to a comic, or just something fun? Thanks for all your work on this site, by the way. DanB (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It also means if you are not a citizen of the European Union, your organs can be harvested without permission, doesn't it? 162.158.62.39 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- That depends on whether you have instructed that your whole body be supercool-vitrified and stored around Titan for until the exoplanet colony ships depart. 172.68.34.106 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This comic failed to allow me to turn off everything Trump has ever tried to pay for; therefore, Randall owes me €300,000. 172.68.34.106 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Point of technicality:
- "purely out of the goodness of our hearts" is a phrase never expected to be found ever anywhere in any privacy policy
Aren't I allowed to block ads from funding sources which include organizations whose privacy policies don't provide goods or services purely out of the goodness of their hearts? 172.68.34.106 06:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- ...similar laws preventing troops being quartert in ones home also exist in European countries
I don't know every European constitution but I probably would know this. The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution seems to be very unique to me. Laws about troops should exist in every country but this is about a constitution. If nobody disagrees this has to be removed or enhanced. --Dgbrt (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, I can say for myself that when I read "similar laws", I understood just that - laws. I don't think the sentence implies it is also part of the constitution in those countries. But if you misread it that way, others may, too, and ambiguity is never a good thing, so feel free to clear it up if you want, but I wouldn't remove the reference to those laws entirely. Jaalenja (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- suggest changing to "but then immediately forces the user to agree to quarter troops in their home, which is a violation of the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution and against the law in many other countries." or something along those lines, would read much clearer. Please excuse if my formatting sucks, this is my first wiki suggestion, ever, ya done popped my cherry. SPeD173.245.52.121 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- In Germy, while not specifying statoning of troops directly, §13 Grundgesetz guarantees the inviolability of the apartment. Stationing troops in ones home would violate that part of the German constitution. 162.158.89.37 12:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- suggest changing to "but then immediately forces the user to agree to quarter troops in their home, which is a violation of the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution and against the law in many other countries." or something along those lines, would read much clearer. Please excuse if my formatting sucks, this is my first wiki suggestion, ever, ya done popped my cherry. SPeD173.245.52.121 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, I can say for myself that when I read "similar laws", I understood just that - laws. I don't think the sentence implies it is also part of the constitution in those countries. But if you misread it that way, others may, too, and ambiguity is never a good thing, so feel free to clear it up if you want, but I wouldn't remove the reference to those laws entirely. Jaalenja (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I summarize: Explicitly mentioning troops being quartert in ones home is unique to the US constitution but most other countries have more common articles preventing the same. This narrow description on this matter only exists in the Third Amendment. --Dgbrt (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Moved from the first paragraph
- - this is incorrect, EU law applies to all legal entities currently physically within the EU - just like every other law and state in the world. If xkcd has a legal representative of some kind in the EU then it would be enforceable on that representative. so much fud.)
This was entered by IP 162.158.38.70 at the explanation but should be discussed here which may be followed by some changes in the explanation. Please do not enter discussions at the explanation. --Dgbrt (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- False. GDPR art. 3 (2): "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union." So, if you're not physically present in the UE it might be harder to enforce, but may still be applicable. Don't want that? Then don't track EU citizens, or simply don't do business there at all.--162.158.91.89 10:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's obvious the first paragraph in the explanation is correct. We should accompany it with a proper link. --Dgbrt (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done. A link to eugdpr.org seems better than a Wikipedia article. --Dgbrt (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are aware that eugdpr.org is not an official site? I'd expect it to be abandoned when the whole GDPR hype is over. 162.158.93.39 17:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of this. But Wikipedia isn't too. Any better idea? I wouldn't mind. --Dgbrt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think [2] is the official page. Jdluk (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, but that's really TL;DR. The eugdpr.org article puts the extra-territorial thing to the top, that's what the first paragraph is about. Haven't done further research right now, but a newspaper article covering the same issue is maybe better. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think [2] is the official page. Jdluk (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of this. But Wikipedia isn't too. Any better idea? I wouldn't mind. --Dgbrt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are aware that eugdpr.org is not an official site? I'd expect it to be abandoned when the whole GDPR hype is over. 162.158.93.39 17:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done. A link to eugdpr.org seems better than a Wikipedia article. --Dgbrt (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's obvious the first paragraph in the explanation is correct. We should accompany it with a proper link. --Dgbrt (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- False. GDPR art. 3 (2): "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union." So, if you're not physically present in the UE it might be harder to enforce, but may still be applicable. Don't want that? Then don't track EU citizens, or simply don't do business there at all.--162.158.91.89 10:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
"Permissions" reminds me of Monty Python's Meaning of Life Part V: Live Organ Transplants. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp-pU8TFsg0 162.158.75.4 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Policy is not an Agreement?
The explanation mentions in several places "the agreement" -- my understanding of a privacy policy is that it is more like a promise than an agreement; the entity declaring the policy is bound to it whether I agree to it or not. It lays out rules that the site operator will adhere to in obtaining consent, which seems different from an agreement to me. 162.158.93.39 17:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Here in the netherlands, there is a law going into effect in a few years that allows the government to harvest your organs after death even without permission, as long as you didn't register against this. This sounds plenty like the organ harvesting part. 141.101.104.53 11:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
