Topic: About the GDPR

[Arantor]

Surely there’s an issue if my PP says “data goes to reCAPTCHA” if I’m not using reCAPTCHA?

[m4z]

Surely there’s an issue if my PP says “data goes to reCAPTCHA” if I’m not using reCAPTCHA?

Full ACK. That's why I'm proposing to have these sections statically prefaced by "If this site is configured to use this (/the 'foo') option[…]".

[Arantor]

How would the person reading the PP know that? Assume they’re reading the T&Cs before going to registration, they’re going be presented with “if the site is using reCAPTCHA” which they realistically cannot know at that point.

And since mods cannot be done with this, why not just avoid the whole problem by making it the site owner’s responsibility in the first place, maybe by offering this information in the config screen.

[m4z]

How would the person reading the PP know that? Assume they’re reading the T&Cs before going to registration, they’re going be presented with “if the site is using reCAPTCHA” which they realistically cannot know at that point.

Does the user have to know? Sure, if "optional service x" is the straw to break the camel's back, and the user reads it might be active, then that might keep a user from registering in the forum. But I'd err to the benefit of the site owner and document everything (in the case of a static document).

And since mods cannot be done with this, why not just avoid the whole problem by making it the site owner’s responsibility in the first place, maybe by offering this information in the config screen.

That would be a possibility, too, indeed. I haven't thought of that (but I still prefer the static catch-all document, I think). I, possibly mistakenly (is this even valid english? ), interpreted your previous replies kind-of as "this is not SMFs problem, the site owner is on his/her/* own to solve this".

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

Any if statement will not work, as then you are still not telling the user what you are required to tell them, you are just saying this may happen - but not telling them if it will.

[m4z]

Any if statement will not work, as then you are still not telling the user what you are required to tell them, you are just saying this may happen - but not telling them if it will.

Yes, again, IANAL, but I'd naively assume it's very much less of a legal problem to say, f.e.:

If you're accessing a thread that contains a [youtube] BBC tag, your PII will be sent to YouTube, Google, and Doubleclick, and here's their Privacy Policies.

(and then be wrong about 99% of threads), than to not mention this fact to the users, which seems like an obvious disregard of the GDPR. (And, just to remind you, the GDPR doesn't apply to EU organizations and private site owners only, but to everybody worldwide that is handling PII of EU/EEA citizens.)

(I'll take the safe route for now and disable the [img] BBC in the forum I'm setting up, because it can include basically any URL (and the focus is on text anyway)...)

[peterbehlendorf]

It would also be nice to have a cookie banner with the position customisable (as much as I dislike them) just to be on the safe side pointing towards the privacy policy.

[shadav]

It would also be nice to have a cookie banner with the position customisable (as much as I dislike them) just to be on the safe side pointing towards the privacy policy.

you mean like this: https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3693

[peterbehlendorf]

It would also be nice to have a cookie banner with the position customisable (as much as I dislike them) just to be on the safe side pointing towards the privacy policy.

you mean like this: https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3693

Yes exactly like that! Thank you. I'm a bit new to using SMF.

I read through the posts here on this thread and didn't see anything about it.

[m4z]

It would also be nice to have a cookie banner with the position customisable (as much as I dislike them) just to be on the safe side pointing towards the privacy policy.

you mean like this: https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3693

According to the mod site, it's not compatible with 2.0.15 or 2.1rc2...

[Antechinus]

Compatible with 2.0.10, so should work with emulation on 2.0.15. I was actually going to test it myself later, but I want to set up a fresh local site first.