that’s just moving the responsibility to the masses as usual

I’m not talking about insecure people. I’m talking about power hungry maniacs that use them.

also, you cannot be tolerant to intolerant people. any system of beliefs like that is doomed. this is what is happening now.

you are not wrong about that. it’s just the reality we live in means that to implement gdpr as it is now you’d have to kill the entire data driven ecosystem and start from scratch… and nobody will do it unless everyone else is doing it. the result is that we have well meant but ultimately unenforced legislation that causes everyone to stretch it just a little bit.

i gave the example with data deletion. deleting someone’s data means also deleting or altering data products derived from it - like statistics, machine learning models etc. which are, in turn, used to create different data products and so on. which are shared, stored and processed beyond the company with different partners (called processors, which may have processors of their own that not even the original data controller needs to be aware of). and you as the primary data controller are technically reaponsible for all of it everywhere. and erasure or withdrawal of consent is the easy case… data subject can, in principle, withdraw consent only for specific purpose or specific processor.

i disagree on a technicality.

i also think the idea of gdpr is good in principle but if a legislation is unenforced and/or unimplementable then it is effectively useless. and gdpr is a case of mostly unenforced because it is practically unimplementable.

for example no company can reasonably implement the right to delete users data (one pf the core principles) when requested… at least not in the extent as it is defined in gdpr (i work as a data engineering manager and trust me, we tried, in every company i worked for…). it is a similar task in scope as if an author of a typesetting font suddenly had the right to revoke your permission to use random letters from their font… and when they did it you would be expected not only to stop using it immediately, but somehow remove it from all of your existing documents including printed copies and copies you sent out to your clients and suppliers (dear supplier, could you, please, replace the invoice we sent you last year with this attached copy add shred the one we sent you originally? we replaced all instances of letter “a” with different font…).

this number is so far off that it makes me doubt your whole story…

quick estimate: if we assume your teacher had a rather new car with good fuel economy (6l/100km) and was using only the least polluting fuel (e85 with 15% ethanol that produces some 1.6kg of co2 per liter) we would have to assume it was a really heavy car made entirely out of the stainless steel (1500kg of the most poluting steel that produces over 6kg of co2 per kg of steel, other materials have comparatively small contribution) to come anywhere close… about 10 tons of co2 from car production and from burning the fuel.

from these crazy assumptions you can easily see that most normal vehicles under normal circumstances will produce way more (like order of magnitude more) of co2 by driving than is produced by making them. for example a smaller car made from 600kg of normal steel (1.8kg of co2 per kg of steel) and fuel efficiency of 8l/100km (still very good) will produce more co2 than was produced in its own production after roughly 5000 miles of driving and is just adding after that…