I found out that if you do that enough times, your account will permanently lose the ability to report ads. At least, the option is no longer present on my account.
It's interesting that this is highlighted in a British paper, as this is due to EU regulations that the UK will soon not be bound by. And the British government has already announced that they are ready to "seize the benefits of Brexit" by cutting down on such business hostile regulations as privacy [0] and human rights [1].
I would guess that this change will be rolled back in the UK as soon as it becomes legal.
GDPR fines are set among other things according to the resources of the entity that broke the rules. As a private person making a side project, you won't be liable for millions.
The most recent examples of individuals being fined have been fines around €200 [0]
This is very different for people. I have some issues with my sight causing pages that are mostly white to be painful to look at. Over time, it triggers migraines. But I know people with the opposite issue. So as an accessibility feature, websites should offer both modes.
Stayed with my iPhone 7 until iPhone 12 for the same (main) reason. Being able to have the phone unlocked on the way from my pocket was fantastic. Unlocking with Face ID takes at least two seconds extra, every time.
Completely agree. The new iPad Air even got it integrated in the sleep button, so Apple has the ability to continue offering Touch ID on all devices and keep the full screen display.
> You might need to retain some data for potential future refunds, for example.
Then that would be a legitimate interest, and you could store that information for a period of time that is reasonable for processing refund requests.
But you would be barred from using that same information for a different purpose, e.g. the loyalty program.
GDPR article 25 requires systems to be have privacy built in, so a system such as the one you describe where a separation of these concerns is impossible, would probably itself be in violation of the regulation.
As an outside observer (European) this seems to be the way the American prison system is run. The inmates are not viewed as humans by the people responsible, enabling horrible conditions.
Fixing such an issue should be top priority, and in the meantime, you would revert to pen and paper accounting to ensure the correct release of each prisoner.
> I have no idea what the benefit of the EEA is for it's members
We have the option to reject certain EU-rules, and can negotiate special exemptions into our agreement. Norway has some exemptions in fishing rights that are central to our agreement. Under the previous government we also rejected the EU Postal Directive, though the current government has since accepted it.
You should actually be careful to say exactly this phrase: "I want a lawyer" and not a word more.
> [W]hen a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel.
I think you are a bit too optimistic on what employers are willing to expense. A note-taking app falls far outside what most workplaces that I know of in IT would accept. In reality, I am afraid that you are excluding a large group of users.
Personally, I would pay 25$ out of my own pocket for this app, but not if I have to ensure that the notes are not related to my work, only to my personal life. And with my personal projects I use similar technologies as I do at work. Should I then not look at the notes when at work? It is just to complicated to live up to the terms of the license.
As several people have pointed out, both the "Personal" and "Catalyst" licenses are intended for personal use only, making this quite an expensive product should I want to use it for work as well. But in the full license text, there seems to be an even more problematic phrasing:
> The use of OBSIDIAN for the exercise of your own trade or profession (...) does not qualify as personal use.
I would interpret this to mean that I as a developer can not use this to exercise the "trade" of software development. That would in turn mean that I can not use this to make notes of stuff I learn on my own time, if it is related to software development.
I would imagine most people not caring about this kind of license limitation, but it would be interesting if it was intended this way, or if this is just me being bad at licenses.
Manually fetching would still execute any malicious code contained in the mail if I understand the article correctly. The only way to be protected seems to be to not use Mail.app until iOS is patched.
I think the fact that this was actually made speaks to the fact that a lot of people are no longer able to do what they were actually hired to do. While I hope that not a lot of people will use the app, I do hope that i sparks some conversations about how our time is spent while at work.
It appears they can, but choose not to. This way they can ensure that less used units are available on the market, forcing people to buy a new unit instead.