ng this license granting data, not me.
It prohibits publishing, and only after a request to be forgotten. It
does not prohibit storing your private copy.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
nds.
In practical terms, if someone wishes to exercise his right to be
forgotten, he will usually send the request to the maintainer and stop
him from distributing the information, and perhaps to a third party he
might use as a platform for publication, such as github.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
of the information.
> But it's *pointless*.
It's up to the subject to consider it pointless or not to exercise his
rights...
> Your problem is in the word: "a"
...and against whom, whether one repository provider, the major ones,
all of them he can find.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
t; of argument wouldn't work.
As I already stressed, having an interest is not enough. You need to
have overriding legitimate grounds.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
gon for publishing; the GDPR calls it
"disclosure (Art. 4 (2) GDPR) to an unspecified number of unspecified
recipients (Art. 4 (9) GDPR), including ones in third countries
(Chapter 5) in a repetitive (Art 49 (1) GDPR) fashion".
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
of
> their purchase of Github.
So? If a thousand lawyers claim 1+1=3, it becomes a mathematical truth?
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
hes from them, since after all, they would not
Why should they be concerned? They can rewrite history if necessary.
They have a solution, though an inconvenient one. As far as the lawyers
are concerned, that solution is pefectly fine.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
u start off private and
> stay there.
Nope. The GDPR says you have to go from public to private if the
subject wishes so and there are no overriding legitimate grounds.
That is the entire purpose of the GDPR's right to be forgotten.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
of the metadata, your probably have
overriding legitimate grounds, however.
The GDPR is not an "all or nothing" thing.
Facebook and Google certainly do not have overriding legitimate grounds
for most of the data they keep privately.
Is it that so hard to understand?
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
) and thus
not covered by the GDPR. The history could still be completely
verified, and when displaying the log, the erased entry could be
displayed as "<>".
What do you think about this?
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
roverb, warning that even
humorous trolling might be dangerous: "Man soll den Teufel nicht an die
Wand malen!" ;)
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
d doesn't pay them, and the CEO one day
takes a flight to Frankfurt to continue by train to Switzerland to get
some cash from his bank account, then he will most likely not reach
Swiss territory.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
at marketing, the lawyers seem more successful in that
respect.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
such that it is
more in line with the GDPRs idea that people have a right to be
forgotten, but to also be useful for a multitude of other applications.
The lawyers can then build on this.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
to be forgotten, or simply discuss technical changes for git
which enable its easy implementation, without legal excuses for not
doing supporting it?
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
he GDPR in some literal sense, but you're
> coming to a conclusion that's supported by ... what? To echo Theodore
> Y. Ts'o E-Mail have you consulted with someone who's an actual lawyer on
> this subject?
I'm replying in private conversation about this one. It's not relevant
for this discussion.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ate yet erase data form repositorys is
desirable from a technical point of view. It has a lot of uses, not
necessarily only legal ones. The objection of efficiency raised by Ted
is a valid one. The strawman argument is not.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
to complete rejection of the approach.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
hink about my proposal as a solution for the problem?
You provide a lot of arguments about why it is not a necessity to have
this, but let's assume it is; is there any actual problem you see with
the proposal, except that someone would have to implement it?
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
se, or anything but git clone (and even that only
if author verification is requested) could possibly be affected in any
significant way.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ement my solution without changing git,
btw. Simply use the anonymous hash as author name, and store the random
number and the author as a git-notes. git-notes can be rewritten or
deleted at any time without changing the commit ID. I am currently
looking into this solution. One just needs to add something that can
verify and resolve those anonymous hashes.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:32:23PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > I would probably invent a file format (``)
tool issues, git would have
tracked mtime from the very start.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
's tree format would change
> to include mtimes (which isn't going to happen), but with a lot more
> flexibility.
Well, from basic logic, I don't see how a decision not to implement a
feature could possibly increase flexility. The opposite seems to be the
case.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
us I'm still not sure whether it will be a UNIX-format timestamp or
whether a human-readable date/time might be preferrable.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ed solution seems pretty reasonable and
realistic to me. Thanks to Phillip's hint about unquote_path() in
Git.pm it seems I now have all the needed ingredients to implement this
feature.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ishment.
What bugs me is my impression from the FAQ that even as an option, the
feature might be unwelcome.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
e}
Perhaps I got it wrong.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ve mtimes, but that this code was
removed because of the build tool issues. Perhaps that code could
simply be put back in, and surrounded by conditions.
Best wishes
Peter
PS: Given the opportunity, I want to thank you very much for
maintaining the git repository for my cvsclone tool.
--
Peter
com/item?id=16509755
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
u'd have the same issue as with consent-based processing of the
information (lit. a).
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
ay, but those who used to use
the 'right' timestamps might for legacy reasons explicitly configure
their system to use those timezone variants. I personally did this for
a number of years, but then converted the filesystems timestamps to
'posix' and I am now exclusively using 'posix' ones.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
33 matches
Mail list logo
