Dear Alan,

since "complies with GDPR" not optional, the only thing that needs to be worked out is how can your wishes be possible with mandatory GDPR compliance. That might be possible if everyone in the EPDP was playing ball fairly, but given that a lack of consensus would revert to the status quo, the current temporary specification, what is the breadth of manoeuvre that the ALAC has with its like-minded colleagues on the EPDP?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 04/09/2018 18:38, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Thananswer is both yes an no.

First, you should remove the "complies with GDPR" part. That is a given it is not an option. Period. But exactly WHAT will be deemed to comply with GDPR is the real question. And that is what the discussion is really about.

*I* want to make information that will be useful to cybersecurity folks and those who create reputation serves and spam filters as easy for them to access as possible. Other want to erect high and difficult barriers. Those barriers may come in the form of the detailed rational for every bit of information, or whether the process is automated or manual.

"consumer protection" is a public good issue that is a given. But HOW it is achieved is the difficult part.

Alan

At 04/09/2018 11:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

So we are somehow in the middle. The question we should be asking ourselves, is whether there is a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate? A solution that provides consumer protection, whilst at the same time complies with GDPR?