2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[hgm]

Given that TC is operated from the EU and concerns members that are EU citizens, the GDPR clearly applies. Especially Art. Art. 7.4, aka forbidden bundling. That means in Art. 6.1, point a) goes right out of the window. Points b), c), d), and e) are obviously not applicable. You'd be hard pressed to seriously argue for point f) - given that the given data aren't verifiable and hence can be false without any consequence, they cannot be necessary to begin with.

The charter does not prevail over applicable law. Technically, that was already in contradiction with the GDPR when TC was hosted by ChessUSA, but US companies with no ties to the EU can ignore the GDPR because there is no enforcement. However, now that TC is operated from the EU, and the N in CSVN stands for Nederland, EU law is not only applicable, but also enforceable.

I am not sure how the GDPR applies here. Surely who is admitted as a member, or whether members have any say in how the forum is run, can be a completely arbitrary decision by the owners of the forum, which we don't have to justify to anyone?

[noobpwnftw]

I would like to prevent we have anonymous users period. Like the charter stipulates, BTW.

Given that TC is operated from the EU and concerns members that are EU citizens, the GDPR clearly applies. Especially Art. Art. 7.4, aka forbidden bundling. That means in Art. 6.1, point a) goes right out of the window. Points b), c), d), and e) are obviously not applicable. You'd be hard pressed to seriously argue for point f) - given that the given data aren't verifiable and hence can be false without any consequence, they cannot be necessary to begin with.

The charter does not prevail over applicable law. Technically, that was already in contradiction with the GDPR when TC was hosted by ChessUSA, but US companies with no ties to the EU can ignore the GDPR because there is no enforcement. However, now that TC is operated from the EU, and the N in CSVN stands for Nederland, EU law is not only applicable, but also enforceable.

We are only providing those information out of goodwill(which hgm claims we lack of). And it is not the first time he attempts to 'criminalize' different opinions or suggesting that he knows anything about common law practice.

[hgm]

Seems more like you have only access to this forum out of goodwill, to me...

[Ras]

I am not sure how the GDPR applies here.

TC is a controller in GDPR-speak, and the real name is obviously personal data under the definition of the GDPR. Also, it doesn't matter that TC is a free service (as in, unpaid). Art. 2 makes no excemption for free services, and TC isn't a personal household activity so that point 2.c is not applicable.

can be a completely arbitrary decision by the owners of the forum

No. As I said, charter does not prevail over law. That's the point of laws. You can disagree with applicable laws, but that doesn't absolve you from adhering to them.

[hgm]

I am not sure how the GDPR applies here.

TC is a controller in GDPR-speak, and the real name is obviously personal data under the definition of the GDPR.

can be a completely arbitrary decision by the owners of the forum

No. As I said, charter does not prevail over law. That's the point of laws.

I was under the impression that the GDPR only regulates which data we can store about people, and how consent is needed for that or can be revoked. Not about any obligations of website owners to provide read or write access to the entire content of their website to anyone who requests this. So which law are you talking about?

[Ras]

I was under the impression that the GDPR only regulates which data we can store about people, and how consent is needed for that or can be revoked.

Exactly. So mandating it as per the charter is not a legal basis. Your opinion that the forum should not be usable without giving the real name is not a legal basis. I already lined out the issues in viewtopic.php?p=971644#p971644, so if you have specific questions, please refer to that.

Not about any obligations of website owners to provide read or write access to the entire content of their website to anyone who requests this.

Doesn't matter. TC is a controller, data subjects sign up for it, personal data are processed, GDPR is applicable. With your argumentation, Facebook etc. would not fall under GDPR, either. Not allowing all functions unless the real name is given collides with Art. 7.4 aka forbidden bundling.

Preventing voting fraud could count as legitimate interest as per Art. 6.1.f, but the problem is that the data are not verified in any way, so that method is not suited for the stated purpose. If it is not suited, then it cannot be necessary.

[chrisw]

I was under the impression that the GDPR only regulates which data we can store about people, and how consent is needed for that or can be revoked.

Exactly. So mandating it as per the charter is not a legal basis. Your opinion that the forum should not be usable without giving the real name is not a legal basis. I already lined out the issues in viewtopic.php?p=971644#p971644, so if you have specific questions, please refer to that.

Not about any obligations of website owners to provide read or write access to the entire content of their website to anyone who requests this.

Doesn't matter. TC is a controller, data subjects sign up for it, personal data are processed, GDPR is applicable. With your argumentation, Facebook etc. would not fall under GDPR, either. Not allowing all functions unless the real name is given collides with Art. 7.4 aka forbidden bundling.

Preventing voting fraud could count as legitimate interest as per Art. 6.1.f, but the problem is that the data are not verified in any way, so that method is not suited for the stated purpose. If it is not suited, then it cannot be necessary.

Fascinating. What about the bulk of the non real name cases where the sign up data was not filled out (eg real name left blank), can those cases even be said to have "signed up"?

[Ras]

What about the bulk of the non real name cases where the sign up data was not filled out (eg real name left blank), can those cases even be said to have "signed up"?

Yes, of course. A user account has been established, after all. What's left as personal data under GDPR might be the email address, depending on whether that is tied to the real identity of the user. Note that for the latter point, it does not matter whether TC could make the connection or would have legal means to do so. It's sufficient that in principle, it would be possible. That's because it can quickly become relevant in case of data breaches, which happens all the time on the internet.

[chrisw]

What about the bulk of the non real name cases where the sign up data was not filled out (eg real name left blank), can those cases even be said to have "signed up"?

Yes, of course. A user account has been established, after all. What's left as personal data under GDPR might be the email address, depending on whether that is tied to the real identity of the user. Note that for the latter point, it does not matter whether TC could make the connection or would have legal means to do so. It's sufficient that in principle, it would be possible. That's because it can quickly become relevant in case of data breaches, which happens all the time on the internet.

Okay, so we have two lists, those who filled out the real name field with what look likes a name, and those who left it blank. We're not discriminating between the two lists in that both can login, read and post.

We then screen the lists with same criteria, poster is active recently, poster made X posts and poster has been registered for Y months. Are we able to screen?
I guess I'ld argue btw, that with real named posters, posting volume and time passing is a form of verification of the name? We can't of course verify at all the non real name posters.

Then we have two cases. First, voting for moderator. Second, standing as a moderator candidate. Are we unable to discriminate in either of these cases?

[mclane]

I don’t like lawyers. They mainly produce problems. If you take a farmer e.g. he mainly produces food.