- 0 Posts
- 72 Comments
Depends on the jurisdiction and the case specifics. In europe, under GDPR the consequence we (my employer) are the most terrified about is an injunction to stop any further processing of given data for a purpose that would be deemed illegitimate.
You’re not coming back from that one…
And that would typically be on top of the fine which would be to some extent « cost of doing business » indeed.
Sounds very US… I had to take some info on the topic here in europe and it appears that there’s a very much unalienable right for kids (and next of kin) to a fair distribution.
One can literally not change the part of the patrimony going to a child (without resorting to very complex arrangements that seemingly won’t be accepted by a judge should shit hits the fan).
Even though, for example, one learns he did not father a child -still cannot change the percentage. Tough luck for the other children, the wife…
Everyone has a right to be protected here. In the grand scheme of things it’s for the best.
And yeah, ethics is the basis for this simply you have to assume the position of the weakest one involved and not from the perspective of the one with the money ;-)
This; « complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU, even with a high daily consumption of 2 litres » for someone not professionally involved means « is ok ». The authorities in the EU literally say « it complies ».
There are additional limits but from what I can read those re precautions not necessarily coming from health guidelines but from other sciences. Most likely very welcomed precautions though but it still says « complies today ».
Also you are avoiding my main concern which is « then what should I do? ».
We can play semantics the whole afternoon and in the end I agree with the idea that unwanted chemicals must be removed from my food & drinks; but then what? We stop drinking ?
Nope, nothing of the sort. I’m just wondering why the tone of the message from the guardian isn’t in line with the source it cites. They literally say « is ok » so what should be the take away?
Limits are too loose? If so what are good limits to look for? Is it a call to drop bottled water? But then what about city water which isn’t measured as far as I can read; is it better? (I doubt given late incidents in Belgium where water tables were contaminated by local industries).
So what can I do? I’m growing incredibly tired of drama for which nothing can be done at my level.
Taken from like the 3 rd link in the guardian article and it leads to this page; https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2024/12/tfa-‘forever-chemical’-european-mineral-waters?utm_source=Laposta&utm_campaign=Press+Release+32&utm_medium=email
I’m starting to doubt my reading capabilities. I went through the source and what I read was « Nevertheless, each of the mineral waters tested - even the one with the highest measured contamination of 3,200 ng/l - complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU ».
So it is contaminated but within acceptable limits. Traces beside a few brands that have larger traces still within those limits.
That on top with the fact that it seems to only be about bottled water which, at least in Belgium, is neither necessary nor that popular around me, makes me wonder what’s the call to action here.
It’s the sharing & cross enrichment that would bother me. That your unemployment office keeps a CRM with the info makes sense. That LEA has it all and more together with the gods know what else is what I would object to. Same for how service providers store that info; there’s a fine line between storing enough and too much. Or too long. And not everything needs to be tied forever to the customer ; sometimes a hash or whatever does wonder for the legitimate purpose. Storing more is often « just in case I can market the data later » which I’m personally not agreeing with.