Talk:General Data Protection Regulation/Archives/2020

Efforts to correct wrong and misleading information were blocked

Hi, I work with GDPR from 2017 as consultant and trainer and have a CIPP/E and CIPM certifications in the field. Recently I discovered that the the wiki-article devoted to General Data Protection Regulation is full of misleading statements that might cause serious problems for the audience. Examples from the first 3 paragraphs:

• wrong statement that only processors must put in place appropriate technical and organizational measures,
• confusion between consent and other lawful bases,
• misguided statement that GDPR protects just EU citizens

I tried to correct them. There been back and forth with MrOllie around whether I can refer to specific articles and exact paragraphs from unofficial gdpr website (GDPR-text.com) . So after a number of unsuccessful attempts I had to delete any references and offered the edit just limited to correcting the falsehoods in the text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Data_Protection_Regulation&diff=934590602&oldid=934507736 Unfortunately, MrOllie continues to undo my edits and to restore misleading information. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privacypro (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Doing what you started here: Explain the problems on the discussion page to try to create consent. I appreciate your last edit - it makes some aspects clearer, so I would like to have the change permanent. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Privacypro, You replaced a source, data.consilium.europa.eu, with many from gdpr-text.com, which adds nothing except some explanatory text from, and links to, data-privacy-office.com, where the co-founder's qualifications and experience match those you've declared as your own. This is pretty clearly WP:REFSPAM in which you're trying to conceal advertising links for your business in references. It's not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Section: "Restrictions" (Disputed)

Section Restrictions currently states: "The following cases are not covered by the regulation: ... Statistical and scientific analysis"

This is untrue. The exceptions are limited: an exemption to Article 9(1) by Article 9(2)(j), and a provision that Member States can "provide exemptions, derogations, conditions or rules in relation to specific processing activities".

Article 89, Recital 156, and Recital 159 refer explicitly to the way statistical and scientific analysis is regulated.

Additionally with the only citation being marked Page Needed, I'm doubtful about the rest of that section.

I am going to mark the section Disputed. Please indicate so that we can reach consensus as editors and seek to rewrite it or remove.

Golightlys (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Over a year later, and this needs action. Claims that science isn't covered is clearly false: "(156) The processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes should be subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject pursuant to this Regulation. [...] (159) Where personal data are processed for scientific research purposes, this Regulation should also apply to that processing." All this can be verified on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32016R0679 and it would be nice if this section were accurate. Certainly a researcher wanting a quick overview of this huge regulation would likely come to Wikipedia first. 174.52.240.90 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of GDPR / What GDPR is NOT !

Isn't there a list of examples where GDPR was misused? --SvenAERTS (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)