| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
| | 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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC) | | 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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:06, 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. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk: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. SPeD[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.121|173.245.52.121]] 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. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.37|162.158.89.37]] 12:15, 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''. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | ;Moved from the first paragraph | | ;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 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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC) | | 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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk: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.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.89|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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::Done. A link to ''eugdpr.org'' seems better than a Wikipedia article. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.39|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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::I think [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679] is the official page. [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::::Oh, I agree! It is law, after all, and EU law at that. Of *course* it's TL;DR. That's why I didn't add it to the article. But if someone wants official, that's probably it.[[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 22:14, 29 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 {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.4}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ;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. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.39|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. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.53|141.101.104.53]] 11:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "This website places pixels on your screen in order to form text and images, some of which may remain in your memory after you close the page." Uh, yeah, I'd hope I'd remember some of the page... Your memory, not your computer's. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.28|162.158.78.28]] 01:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I did expect to see an entry in the agreement something like "Cookies may be employed, depending on how peckish the server is" :-) --[[User:OliReading|OliReading]] ([[User talk:OliReading|talk]]) 10:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
| |
