I propose the following data to be a new case:
| Fields | Data |
|---|---|
| Name | The government and its agencies may have access to your personal data. |
| Description | The government of the country and its government agencies where personal data is stored may have access to your personal data. |
| Classification | blocker |
| Topic | https://edit.tosdr.org/topics/6 |
| Weight | 0 |
Not sure if a blocker is the right approach.
Basically every government has access to personal data, even the ones with strict privacy policies.
For instance ToS;DR Data is stored in Germany and the US (Phoenix in the US, Forum in Germany), by law we have to give the government access to data, granted they have a warrant.
(See NetzDG - Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken as well as TMG - Telemediengesetz)
While it is good to know that government may have access to your data, it should be neutral at best.
Actually, it’s a specific point where I didn’t know what to put and I would like to correct it.
Check:
That point makes more sense, so they are sharing data with gov at all times.
So, we should create a point like:
Users’ personal data is shared with the government all the time
I would say that point is already linked to a case that fits well.
Personal data is shared with government agencies if there’s a lawful order, and the user acknowledges that data may be shared without their consent or without being notified.
Given that, what would matter to the user would be if the service is located in a country where users’ data is often requested or not ( i.e. if the terms are governed by a jurisdiction falling under case 242 or case 241).
Therefore I don’t think a new case is necessary, since as long as people working for the service have access to your personal data, the government inevitably has the right to access to it too.
I understand,
But in my opinion, Case 189 is only about the people who work there (noted as neutral and not blocker) and if I were to be a user of this service, I would want to be aware that my data is being shared voluntarily with the government (including the NSA and other government agencies).
For me, Case 242 does not have enough impact on the collaboration of this service with the government.
But I fully understand that it doesn’t merit the creation of a point.
There could also be a ‘good’ point: this service uses a warrant canary. Couldn’t be weighted too strong because the assurances are weak, but it might get at what this discussion is about.
Case 169: The service is transparent regarding government requests or inquiries that may involve your data., I think this refers to warrant canaries
The case is neutral however, and in the deprecated Topic.
Ok ok, I agree with you
This topic was automatically closed after 6 days. New replies are no longer allowed.