So, I’m kinda new to this Lemmy thingy and the fediverse. I like the fediverse from a technological standpoint. However, I think that, if we gain more and more traction, Lemmy (and by extend the entire fediverse) is a GDPR clusterfuck waiting to happen. With big and expensive repercussions…

Why? Well, according to GDPR, all personal data from EU users must remain in the EU. And personal data goes really far. Even an IP-address is personal data. An e-mail address is personal data. I don’t think there is jurisprudence regarding usernames, so that might be up for discussion.

Since the entire goal of the fediverse is “transporting” all data to all servers inside the ActivityPub/fediverse world, the data of a EU member will be transported all over the place. Resulting in a giant GDPR breach. And I have no idea who will be held responsible… The people hosting an instance? The developers of Lemmy? The developers of ActivityPub?

Large corporations are getting hefty fines for GDPR breaches. And since Lemmy is growing, Lemmy might be “in the spotlights” in the upcoming years.

I don’t like GDPR, and I’m all for the technological setup of the fediverse. However, I definitely can see a “competitor” (that is currently very large but loosing ground quickly) having a clear eye out to eliminate the competition…

What do y’all thing about this?

  • @[email protected]
    2•2 years ago

    If what you say is true, then… Email is illegal in the EU. EMAIL.

    No, but there are actually certain things you need to take into consideration when it comes to GDPR and email.

    What the GDPR says:

    Data erasure is a large part of the GDPR. It is one of the six data protection principles: Article 5(e) states that personal data can be stored for “no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed.” Data erasure is also one of the personal rights protected by the GDPR in Article 17, the famous “right to be forgotten.” “The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay.” There are some exceptions to this latter requirement, such as the public interest. But generally speaking, you have an obligation to erase personal data you no longer need.

    What it means for email: Many of us never delete emails. There are plenty of good reasons: We may need to refer to them someday as a record of our activities or even for possible litigation. But the more data you keep, the greater your liability if there’s a data breach. Moreover, the erasure of unneeded personal data is now required under European law. Because of the GDPR, you should periodically review your organization’s email retention policy with the goal of reducing the amount of data your employees store in their mailboxes. The regulation requires you to be able to show that you have a policy in place that balances your legitimate business interests against your data protection obligations under the GDPR.

    https://gdpr.eu/email-encryption/

    I still don’t see a reason why Lemmy shouldn’t be affected by the GDPR and why it’s probably not compliant in its current state.

    • @[email protected]
      5•2 years ago

      The last paragraph you quoted is in reference to individual responsability and how they access the data. It’s equivalent to saying “don’t look at at this Fediverse post: you are GDPR compliant!”. This only helps you in litigation. We both know that says nothing of where the data can exist. And this is true for any federated system, including email.

      It’s also completely asinine. Suddenly we need to burn snail mail after reading it? Why receive any mail at all if everything is a giant piece of liability? There’s a social contract in communication: a certain assumption that if you give someone a piece of informtion, you are doing just that: giving, not lending. “Lending information” upsets the social structure. GDPR has to be tempered in reality, and this starts even before the fediverse.

      Like I said, GDPR is imperfect. It was written in the context of and solves a problem created by centralized institutions and large beaurocracies. It is also completely unenforceable in a decentralized system. It hardly seems relevant anyway.

      Realisticalpy speaking, those tempered interpretations are probably already existant, and there is already enough precedent for this to be a nothing burger.

      • @[email protected]
        3•2 years ago

        This whole thread is full of interpretations and gut feelings. Literally no one here backs up their claims with any kind of evidence.