• Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    PII includes any information that can be used to link or correlate personal information. That includes usernames and account IDs. Every like/upvote contains that information, as well as a timestamp, indicating a unique account but also behaviour. The system doesn’t just share a list of names, it shares a list of names with a lot of context. Stuff like this is also why pseudonymisation isn’t sufficient to avoid GDPR obligations.

    Usernames aren’t sensitive information, so you can handle it without too much special care (although you do need to ensure basic protection of login credentials against data leaks, for instance by encrypting databases as a minimum requirement). They are PII, though, which means you’re obligated to take some level of care and ensure that the information can be corrected or redacted everywhere.

    The GDPR simply wasn’t written with something like the Fediverse in mind. My server knowing when your account upvoted what posts on a third server would be ridiculous if we’re talking about Twitter and Facebook, but it’s the core of vote counting on Lemmy.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      GDPR doesn’t include things you choose to make public, otherwise no social media could show your posts or username to anyone. My only doubt about Lemmy and Mastodon is about DMs where people have a reasonable expectation that they are private but they are not.

      Edit: and thinking about it, even DMs probably fall into the same exception as email.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That is wrong. GDPR of course covers public information. It simply does not force platforms to hide this kind of information. But transmission of these informations without user’s consent and especially sale of these informations could possibly be prohibited by a court referencing GDPR.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          But simply transmitting it for the purposes of making the protocol work, falls under legimitate purposes, like sending an email to email server in China

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Absolutely.

            But if a fedi software/instance decided to do something else with this public data, it could get legally problematic. That is the point I’m making.