General_Effort

@General_Effort@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  PSA: Sharing that information was almost certainly a GDPR violation in the EU. It may also have been a criminal offense under German law (§128a StGB).