/i/2000901771.png?w=800&resize=800%2C&ssl=1)
M.vr.gr: a privacy professional
Serious? Are you going to enforce your own particularly free interpretation of legislation that has not yet been tested by competent courts in comparable cases by saying that you are a privacy professional?
This is called an “argumentum ad verecundiam”, or “appeal to authority”, and is a popular fallacy for trying to validate weak (or indefensible) arguments.
Especially for you, I will unleash a reductio ad absurdum: if you understand your interpretation of art. 4.1 follows, you are no longer allowed to store anything about anyone, and in practice you can abolish databases as a whole, since you have just stated that even breathing in the street is a personal data, since it can be linked to me as a person, and that accidental hearing are obliged to cooperate in destroying or transmitting their knowledge of the sound of my breath.
No mister privacy professional (sic), that’s not how the world works. Here in the West, the legislature makes laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary independently tests them against reasonableness and applicability. The aim of the GDPR is to protect privacy-sensitive information from and about people, not to facilitate switching suppliers. Would be something.
/data/photo/2021/02/09/60226afe8e826.jpeg?w=150&resize=150%2C&ssl=1)
