I'm glad it all worked out for this individual. I hope more people live their lives like this as the dystopia progresses.<p>Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason, but also puts you at a significant disadvantage compared to the people that never push back in the interest of not making waves, or even because "whatever it's fine."
Went to a new doctor. As part of the check-in process, I was asked to "sign" a little digital pad, so, as I was told, they could properly use my insurance. I asked to see the hard copy of what I was signing and they couldn't find one. Then, for some reason, they were unable to print one. I gave up and scribbled my sig with my finger and then was seen by a doctor. It's maddening.
I'm sure someone smarter than me has a solution. Those papers you're required to sign are generally the result of regulation. Some law got passed that say "you can't share info unless you get signed permission". The person dreaming up the law thought that would be enough to stop getting them to share info. But, even if they cared about privacy, they don't want to increase all their expenses and run their own IT department so they contract out for 3rd party billing, 3rd party document infra, etc etc. Like if they wanted to store your appointment in MS Word 365 or Google Docs, suddenly the regulation kicks in. They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs. They're just going to get you to sign that they can do what they need.<p>As one example, I went to a doctor, he ordered an x-ray. I went over to the x-ray company then back to my doctor. He pulled up the x-ray immediately. He's only able to do that because I signed that he can share my info with the x-ray company and visa-versa.<p>Again, I don't have a solution. No regulation = he'd probably share my data. But regulation = he gets me to sign so he can legit provide the service, and still shared my data (Because I signed). So all the regs did is make visiting the doctor more annoying, and add $$$$ to push all the paperwork around.
Regarding information sharing, not quite. Covered entities (term of art in HIPAA), which include providers (and also payers!) including both the lab and your doctor, do not need your permission to share information between them for the purposes of treatment, payment, or operations (commonly, "TPO"). A BAA between a covered entity and a vendor (like an EHR or PACS [viewer for your imaging]) also does not require any patient consent.<p>There are sometimes things you might not like hidden in the releases you're signing, beyond the run of the mill acceptance of financial responsibility / assignment of benefits, notice of privacy policy acknowledgment, consent to treat.
> They're not going build a document sharing platform to get their job done just so they can meet the regs.<p>What is so hard in respecting the spirit of the law?
Becauae "spirit of the law" doesnt exist. It is a saying used by people when they want to do something that isnt in the law. You dont see lawyers, judges or law makers use the phrase.
There are many dollars in between.
Once I rented an apartment in US, and the documents said that they can make videos, pictures and audio recordings of me and my family, and use it for their own purposes including commercial. I objected, but their position was that no one is going to involve legal department for me, and I am free to go away.
Rentals are exactly what I was talking about. Supposedly you can always go to someone else, but we all know in practice we can't just go without housing and if everyone decides you're "difficult," you're SOL.<p>Earlier this week a potential landlord offered me a lease saying I had already inspected the property and found no issues with it.<p>I asked for a chance to actually inspect before signing, and even said I would settle for a good quality video walkthrough. They told me the unit was "not available for viewing" because it wasn't finished yet, and by the time it was finished it would likely be taken.<p>So why did you ask me to sign a contract saying I inspected a property that it's conceptually impossible to inspect??<p>I asked if they could change that part of the lease. They said they were "unable" due to "demand and interest in the property."<p>Of course, still not as insane as your story.
Pretty sure that's a violation of fundamental human rights as it's your place of living. Surely that can't be legal, even in the US can it?
I've also read reviews of Greystar properties where the reviewers expressed shock at being forced to consent to such abuse.
> and I am free to go away.<p>This is the crux of the problem when landlords are allowed to form or join an "association" that gets too pervasive.<p>This was at the heart of the RealPage lawsuits.
I found some shit like that in a gym contract, which I then declined.
This is basic security. Cameras around entrances, exits, and common areas have become critical for safety and preventing mail theft.
If it said so in the contract I would not have any issues, something like "recordings of you are available only to authorized security personnel, can be provided to you upon request for a reasonable price covering filtering and other paperwork, and can be shared solely for security and legal purposes".
There is no version of basic security that extends to commercial use of your likeness in their marketing.<p>Be reasonable.
I am that person that reads every line of the contracts I sign, including ToS and PP. I appreciate that I can tell who it rubs the wrong way, because it tells me who will shake my hand without intending to honor their word. It changed the way I write these documents as well, the last ToS and PP I wrote can each be read in a single breath.
> Unfortunately, especially in the US, exercising your rights, or even just reading every paper you're expected to put your name to, not only constantly pisses people off for some reason<p>Yup. It's particularly sad seeing other people in this very thread talking about how they would "ban this customer for life" just for knowing their rights.<p>I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.
>I think it's pathetic that this has become the culture amongst large swathes of Americans - especially ones who consider themselves patriotic. This country was founded in rebellion and the assertion of our rights, and somehow the exact opposite is now the ideal of many citizens now.<p>DHS is putting on the domestic terrorists watch list those people who took parts in the protests. Or at minimum threatens to put. And if you google a bit more you'd see that it isn't limited to ICE. Any dissent is perceived by the current government in a similar "terrorism" way. For majority of population that would completely chill any desire to assert rights.<p><a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_dhs_on_domestic_terrorist_database.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_dhs_on...</a><p>"U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and senior Trump
administration officials have repeatedly suggested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is building a “domestic terrorists” database comprising information on U.S. citizens protesting ICE’s actions in recent weeks.<p>...<p>In recent weeks, DHS personnel and senior officials have repeatedly stated that the agency is engaged in efforts to monitor, catalog, and intimidate individuals engaged in peaceful protests"
Oh I’m well aware.<p>It’s reprehensible and I am demanding accountability from my elected politicians. The only way we’ll see someone answer for these crimes, though, is if enough Americans give a shit to get off their fucking asses and actually put people into office who will bring change.
I don't know that signing up for a rewards club and then complaining that you're being marketed to is quite the platonic ideal of rebellion you make it out to be.
Actual decision (Norwegian): <a href="https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/c8d0551d2a64403285e006f76170b8b6/elkjop---vedtak-om-overtredelsesgebyr---kundeklubb-og-de-registrertes-rettigheter.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/c8d0551d2a64403285...</a><p>Machine translation of overview & 5.1 which is what the blog post is about (covers some other things as well): <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34732c-0fa4-83e8-aae1-95c25dd117c9" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6a34732c-0fa4-83e8-aae1-95c25dd117...</a><p>[EDIT] Oh, there was actually official English decision available as well: <a href="https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28fbb8193d0bbfb2f/22_00049-28-22_00049-22-final-decision---elkjop-nordic-as.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.datatilsynet.no/contentassets/59addbef9c1b48a28f...</a>
> The reply I received a few days later did me the favour of putting the violation on the record. Their position, in their own words, was that "in order to receive marketing / offers, it is a condition to be a member of the customer club." That one sentence is the whole case. They had taken a right I am entitled to exercise for free and turned it into the price of admission.<p>I don’t understand… it would be one thing if it said “receiving marketing/offers is a condition of being a member of the customer club” but that’s not what is being stated above… rather that being a member of the club is required to receive marketing — perhaps something has been misworded or lost in translation?
Yeah sounds like it's backwards , and should be "in order to be a member of the customer club, it is a condition to receive marketing / offers ."
I think the "marketing/offers" means discounts? To be eligible for the discounts or special offers, you have to be a member of the club, and if you are a member of the club you have to be willing to receive the email messages, and somehow under EU law you're entitled to all discounts I guess?
Yea, I don't get it either. Receiving being a condition on membership means (in my understanding) only that non-members can't (shouldn't) receive anything, not that members will or must receive something. Which sounds perfectly normal and sane to me.
sounded exactly like translation error from a German-related lang.<p>e.g. "to receive offers...is a condition to be in..."
I understand where he's coming from, but it is still hilarious that he sued the legal entity that won the case for him, after they found the case in his favor.
The image isn't loading for me, all I see is the prompt used to generate it - which is genuinely preferable.
For me it was showing the image and the prompt, but the whole page was unstyled. But when I reloaded the page now, the css loaded also and the prompt is not shown.<p>I guess the web server was temporarily overwhelmed by traffic resulting in images (like for you) and css files (like for me) not being consistently served to all visitors.
Is it a prompt or accessibility description for screen readers?
Datatilsynet, the Norwegian DPA, from my experience, consistently has the user in mind. It (sadly) takes a long time for things to pass through the system, but they consistently come to good decisions.
This is extremely cool reading! I'm impressed that they actually fined Elkjøp (as they should!) but very surprised that they didn't keep you informed!<p>Thank you for sharing!
And how much did it make them over those 5 years?
This fills my heart with joy. If only ICO in the UK would do the same.
Good to know that this is illegal. One of my email providers also does this, maybe I’ll also have to try reporting them and see what happens.
Go for it! If nobody reports things they don't get fixed.<p>I have found this to be true not <i>just</i> when it comes to companies breaking laws, but also to much more benign things. Such as reporting potholes in town or broken microwaves at work. Those can be in need of fixing for an extended period of time, yet when I report them, they usually get fixed within days. I suspect most people can't be bothered or think that <i>surely</i> someone else will report the issue. But that doesn't work if everyone thinks that way.
EU only though. You can get away with pretty much anything outside of EU.
Badass. Hope this keeps happening to all of those abusive "take it or leave it" corporations.
There's also issue with EU companies forcing candidates to agree to their anti-privacy policies (confusingly named "privacy policies") as a requirement before the job interview.<p>Those anti-privacy policies will state, that you grant the company and third-parties (so, anyone) permissions to use your data (including voice and image) for any purpose. (Of course, it is stated in a slightly obscure fashion, so a layman may not comprehend it.)<p>I wonder if there has been any similar action taken against those.
I haven't personally encountered that, but you are free to lodge complaint with your local DPA about it.<p>That exact language is unlikely to be compliant. If you want to maximize your effect you could make Article 15 request to the company in question, get the list of actual recipients of data (make sure to be ask for this specifically) and then make another request to all of those companies. That will then allow you to possibly make further complaints (e.g. why exactly they didn't send Article 14 information to you, are the legal basis they use actually proper in your case especially if the original one was consent and it was not freely given).
Love to see this, and love our privacy and data handling laws!
Excellent outcome. I wish we had these rights in the USA! Too bad justice took 5 years though.
There are some state laws - California, Virginia and Colorado, a bunch of others. And the SECURE Data Act currently in Congress. <a href="https://statescoop.com/house-subcommittee-secure-data-act-preempts-state-privacy-laws-2026/" rel="nofollow">https://statescoop.com/house-subcommittee-secure-data-act-pr...</a>
This article reads like “jurisprudence fetishist gets off on technicality!”<p>How refreshingly European.
The part about this that's amazing to me is that they <i>still</i> are doing nothing after he noted another GDPR violation [0]. He's obviously both competent and litigious. What does the company expect to happen next??<p>[0] "Under Article 77(2) of the GDPR a supervisory authority is under a binding legal obligation to keep a complainant informed of the progress and the outcome of their complaint. It is not a courtesy and it is not discretionary - it is written into the law. I filed my complaint with IMY, IMY passed it on, the case ended in a multi-million euro enforcement action, and not one of the authorities involved thought to tell the person who started it."
It's always satisfying when customer rights stories have a known positive outcome. The timeline is unfortunately quite slow and bureocractic but I'm glad OP managed to find out about it.
Lol. Brookfield Place wifi had an OPT IN for their wifi to receive marketing.<p>If you unclicked it, the 'connect to wifi' button greyed out and a notification appears saying that Opt In is required for wifi.
how was 1.8M calculated?<p>has any calculations been made on how much actual profit was made by these unlawful actions?
I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
I wish America had real privacy laws like Norway.
> the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel my membership of the club altogether<p>I have experienced this same thing with at least one other big company in Norway.<p>I could opt out of <i>either</i> SMS or e-mail, but not both, or I would not be able to keep the membership.<p>Unfortunately, I never made a note of which one that was exactly so I can’t name them and shame them on the spot.<p>Despite half-hearted attempts at stopping marketing emails now and then by individually logging in and opting out, or clicking unsubscribe links embedded in the email, my email continues to be flooded with marketing both from domestic and foreign companies that I’ve done business with. There is so many companies that even going through a handful of them at a time and unsubscribing there is a seemingly endless amount of companies that remain to unsubscribe from.<p>It is great to see that someone fights back, and that it is resulting in fines.
Hahaha, the sticker looks really funny, but I like it.
GDPR is a godsend.
I’m imagining an agentic solution in everyone’s inbox that automates GDPR fines and updates
[dead]
I'm so glad the GDPR never took hold in the US. Little Karens getting companies fined millions of dollars over what amounts to nothing.<p>You can always not use their service. Plenty of alternatives out there.
I for one was signed up for Elkjøp kundeklubb membership unbeknownst to me. It happened when I was picking up a water cooker. Seller asked if I would like an electronic receipt and asked me for my email. That was in Elkjøp at Solsiden in Trondheim.<p>The more annoying is that I gave him my regular email address and not a generated alias that I always give to companies.<p>Was super pissed when spam started landing on my main address.<p>So no, not plenty alternatives here.
How depressingly unamerican.
I wonder if anyone who are cheering this fine, actually read and tried to implement GDPR. It is a nightmare to be fully compliant for small companies.<p>It is mostly just a theater (like endless cookie consent dialogs in anonymous browsing), to employ more experts and bureaucrats.<p>EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.
I have read it. It's really easy to be compliant if don't start from a position of extracting the maximum amount of data from every user out there. If you start from the opposite end of the scale, only getting the data you need for the goals you need to achieve in the interest of the user, you barely have to do anything beyond what you would have done anyway.
I did, it is easy, you just don't spy on people and have a point of contact and you're good. It becomes hard when you want to spy on people and also remain compliant with the no spying law.
The cookie consent dialogs were never required in this form.<p>That was literally just malicious compliance in order to get people mad at the law instead of the companies (at least at first, there's also a huge amount of cargo-culting nowadays). Congrats, you've been psy-opped.
Yes. It’s very easy actually. People think it’s hard only because they’ve built revenue streams on unethical behavior.
> EU is now pushing privacy laws that severely undermine privacy.<p>Even if it’s most just theater, you don’t make the case at all how it undermines privacy.
Stop spying on people.
It's an interesting story, but I could not help but have my mind skip over it because of the LLMisms. Acts like one of those taboola reels to me. If even just there was a tutorial to get people to write in such a way that it's not obviously LLM text it would be nice because the story is interesting.<p>I know, it's like complaining about JS etc. but it's like walking into an elevator and smelling very strong perfume. It's hard not to go "whew!"
If I did business in the EU, I would be banning this chap from my services on the basis that the risk he poses to the business is too great...
You would do no such thing, because if you tried, you wouldn't have a business in the EU anymore.
In other words, you'd ban someone because they might notice that you are doing illegal stuff <i>and</i> you might get caught.<p>Follow the laws and it isn't an issue. I'm pretty sure banning someone for that stuff is probably illegal, too.
We don't want your business in the EU if this is your attitude to things like this.
The risk of getting caught doing business illegally? You really don't give a damn about the illegal part, just getting caught?
Frankly, this attitude is <i>pathetic</i>. Absolute loser behaviour.<p>I don't think you should be doing business <i>anywhere</i> if customers being familiar with the law and knowing their rights scares you. Frankly if you are running a business, you should be familiar with the laws and regulations, doing otherwise - especially when someone points out that your behaviour is illegal - is negligence and punishment with a fine is completely appropriate. Welcome to living in a society.
Just awoid some jurisdictions. Bulgaria is in EU, has all the same access, and has no time for this BS.