That’s not true at all. If you obfuscate the PII it stops being PII. This is an extremely common trick companies use to circumvent these laws.
originalfrozenbanana
joined 11 months ago
That’s not strictly speaking true. It requires more oversight and mechanisms of control but those very well could already be in place.
Well that’s because you’re a tech-hating Luddite most likely \s
Yeah since I learned who the Luddites were I’ve kind of fallen in love with them
Lê Monde? More like Lê Tankie am I right I’m so sorry
/s
Happy to! I can see why someone would be confused 😂
People here are far more likely to be anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, pro-privacy, etc. those groups all circle the same kind of Cory Doctorow/Matt Stoller/Luddite world where the word enshittification became popular.
Most gym employees don’t have that level of discretion in the US at least. Most gyms I’m aware of are franchises and asking a wage employee to go against their corporate policies risks their livelihood.
Ah I missed the part where you said “and charge you.” There’s nothing in contracts like these that says the gym has to let you identify yourself in any way you choose and I don’t see why you think there would be.
I never said they’d charge you, I said they wouldn’t just let you in.
Isn’t what illegal? They are allowed to determine how you access their gym.
Assuming it is PII when you store it. This is a complicated discussion that will absolutely come down to what Slack can defend to a regulator