So you're basically saying we should give them the benefit of the doubt on not complying with GDPR because they have a good track record?
It would be one thing if OP was receiving cookie-cutter responses from CloudFlare's support team, but the CEO repeatedly personally intervenes and makes assurances that simply aren't true (and he's already made the same promises in this thread). How can those promises be taken at face value when it's still a problem a year later?
No, I'm not saying anything about "doubt". I'm saying if a nice friend (or a non-friend for that matter) takes your pencil and insists for the next year that he'll return to you despite never doing so, maybe there's a better way to deal with this trauma than to crucify him in front of 7 billion people.
I mean if you want to go out of your way to portray the company in the best possible light and OP in the worst possible light, sure.
Most people wouldn't consider a multi-million dollar corporation that is beholden to federal regulation their 'friend' though. And if we're continuing your painfully hyperbolic analogy, if said friend kept insisting that they had or were in the process of giving me back my pencil any time I asked them over the course of a year, I would have some grounds to complain.
Oh, my bad. By complain on a small independent forum I really meant 'crucify him in front of seven billion people'. My mistake.
For someone experiencing "pain" at "hyperbole" I hope it doesn't pain you to realize that the forum you're calling "small" has some five million monthly readers...
I mean you're the one who called this independent blog post a 'public crucifixion in front of 7 billion people' but sure, let's make this a "no u" thing.
If that person is a publicly-traded company with hundreds of millions in revenue, and "taking your pencil" is failing to adhere to their obligations under privacy law, yeah, maybe public shaming isn't too bad.
I mean, I know in America, corporations are people and even have constitutionally-protected religious beliefs, but I'm sure Cloudflare will, with enough counselling, cope with the trauma of some mild public shaming.
A better way, such as? You mean like writing email / tweet requests directly to those responsible? What's this magical alternative method? FWIW, this method seems to have worked where the reasonable and common methods clearly failed. He bought his own nails and cross when he promised action would be taken but failed to execute.
> A better way, such as? You mean like writing email / tweet requests directly to those responsible? What's this magical alternative method? FWIW, this method seems to have worked where the reasonable and common methods clearly failed. He bought his own nails and cross when he promised action would be taken but failed to execute.
Is shaking your head, maybe adding an email filter or reporting as spam, and moving on with your life too traumatic an experience to go through? Is your life not worth living at that point unless you pull the fire alarm, evacuate the whole building, and publicly obtain vengeance?
I run into this all the time at work. We're at the point where we've spent 5 whole minutes talking about some software-driven bad behavior. Nobody is sure if this is the first time we've been affected by it (maybe it's the fifth time already, but it is starting to feel like deja vu.)
Someone suggests it isn't really a problem and we should ignore it. This person is very effective at their job and gets lots of stuff done once we've decided to take action. But there's a problem, actually tons of them, they're piling up now and we still have daily conversations about how they aren't a problem, (on a big long rotation so nobody seems to recall if we've seen this one before on any given day.)
No. Nobody said don't deal with the problem. Nobody said it isn't really a problem either. I'm saying go ahead and deal with the problem as best as you can, privately. If you still can't solve it at the source, then mitigate it on your end, and move on. Just because ∃ a problem and you encounter it for a long time, that doesn't mean you need to alarm people across the planet over it, or to publicly crucify someone in the process.
Nobody is being crucified. Nobody said they can't solve it at the source. They seem to want to solve it, at least outwardly. You're forgetting that only this forum seems to have the capability of reach, to reach those who are empowered to fix the problem.
If it was just a problem for this one person, well that would be a real anomaly. But adding a filter rule to always block is ignoring the problem, in the context of my work-life analogy, not fixing it.
It would be one thing if OP was receiving cookie-cutter responses from CloudFlare's support team, but the CEO repeatedly personally intervenes and makes assurances that simply aren't true (and he's already made the same promises in this thread). How can those promises be taken at face value when it's still a problem a year later?