this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
87 points (97.8% liked)

Europe

10386 readers
1511 users here now

News and information from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Humanius@lemmy.world 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Okay.. From my understanding of the article, they are revising a previous definition of what is considered pseudoanonymized data. This defintion was introduced following a court ruling that pseudonymized data can be considered personal data under certain circumstances (Which I'm assuming means if that pseudoanonymized data still contains identifiable information)

They are removing a section which was added in last November, following the court ruling in September. This section claimed that pseudoanonymized data does not count as personal data, even if it contains "Information relating to a natural person" by which other people could identify the person.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is rolling back a previous weakening to the GDPR.

[โ€“] nuscheltier@feddit.org 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

... won't that be caught by the courts again? Do they play a game to get as many personal data as they can get till it comes back into effect?

[โ€“] Humanius@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

The courts ruled in September 2025 that pseudoanonymized data can still count as personal data, if it is not sufficiently anonymized, under the definition as it existed at the time. Since personal data comes with a whole bunch of requirements under the GDPR that meant that even if data is pseudoanonymized, it might not be sufficient to be free of GDPR restrictions

The revision from November 2025 aimed to say "no actually pseudoanonymized data is not personal data after all" even if it contained identifiable information. I could see that introducing a loophole where companies start claiming that they "sufficiently" pseudoanonymized their data, even though it's still full of identifiable information.

Scrapping that revision just brings us back to the position we were in back in September, where pseudoanonymized data is not automatically anonymous. If the pseudoanonymized data contains identifiable information it is personal information, and thus comes with the additional requirements of the GDPR. (If I'm understanding this correctly)

Edit: Also worth noting that this follows a recommendation by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), that the definition of personal data "should say what personal data is, instead of what it is not", in order to avoid legal uncertainty resulting from the revision in November.

[โ€“] sp3ctre@feddit.org 6 points 10 hours ago

Well, that's probably a good thing. We're still watching closely.

[โ€“] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 7 points 12 hours ago

Anyone else have trouble reading that headline? Title gore if you ask me.

[โ€“] Babalugats@feddit.uk 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

It's how they plan to collect our data after the massive pushback so far against chat control. They're trying to break GDPR and at the moment they are just performing weak spot exploitation.

[โ€“] Humanius@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Have you read the article? They appear to be rolling back a previous weakening, so it is the exact opposite of breaking the GDPR.

In November they tried to classify pseudoanonymised data as not being considered personal information, even if it still contained information by which someone could be identified. This was following a court ruling in September that pseudoanonymised data could be considered personal information in certain situations.

This proposal would roll back that change from November

[โ€“] Babalugats@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Have you read the article? Why would they need to rollback to a previous ruling in the first place?

I'll leave that one with you and expect to hear the loud clang when the penny drops.

  • Hint: look up weak spot exploitation.
[โ€“] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What pushback against chat control? You mean all the comments on lemmy?