Attached: 1 image
Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.
Should be no surprise considering bsky constantly protects nazis, the far right, and all flavors of bigotry at the expense of Palestinians and trans women.
Fortunately, their information already spread so far and wide that at least half of the Blood Tribe nazis lost their jobs following the mass doxx. Chris Pohlhaus, leader of BT, estimated financial losses at over $2 million lol. Happy holidays!
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.
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.
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.