Is there a hidden meaning in this EU regulation? In Regulation (EU) No 540/2014 Annex VIII Section IV is stated, that: &quot;Switch Any mechanism to enable the driver to halt the operation of an AVAS (‘pause function’) shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.2.6 of UNECE Regulation No 138, Supplement 1 to the original version of the Regulation, 01 series of amendments (OJ L 204, 5.8.2017, p.112).&quot; The UNECE Regulation No 138 paragraph 6.2.6 - &quot;Pause function Any pause function as defined in paragraph 2.7. shall be prohibited&quot; 2.7 says - &quot;Pause function means a mechanism to enable the driver to halt the operation of an AVAS.&quot; What is purpose then to link to different document, instead of just saying in 540/2014, that Switch for AVAS is prohibited? The mentioned supplement 1 also says &quot;Paragraph 6.2.6, amend to read: ‘6.2.6. Pause function Any pause function as defined in paragraph 2.7 shall be prohibited.’&quot;
If you say something twice, eventually they’ll be in conflict Law codes are vast. They deal with many things and sometimes, as here, they deal with the same thing twice. If they duplicated themselves, rather than cross-referencing, every time the law was changed, every single instance would have to be tracked down and changed. Admittedly, that is not as big a problem with digital codes (but still not infallible and definitely time-consuming) but when these would have to be found by hand, it was damn near impossible. Written this way, change it once and it’s changed everywhere. My first boss taught me that. The fired was engineering rather than law but the principle is the same.
GDPR defines consent like this in Art 4(11): ‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her; Further conditions on consent are given in Art 7 GDPR. For you, the important aspects are: Consent must involve an affirmative action (opt-in). Thus, consent cannot be the default and must not be pre-selected. The Planet49 judgement provides relevant case law on this. Consent must be an unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes. Consent must be informed. This requires access to the full privacy policy. Abuse is discouraged because the data controller has burden of proof that valid consent was collected (see Art 7(1)). How does the RedHat consent tool measure up? The consent appears to require an affirmative action and seems unambiguous: no option is pre-selected, and you need to click on “Out” or “In”. The selected option is then highlighted. However, I agree that the radio buttons are not entirely clear once a selection has been made. I also agree with you that the terms “Out” and “In” are not self-explanatory. They rely on the user knowing the terms “opt-out” and “opt-in”. This could indicate that the user's action isn't unambiguous. That the privacy policy page also shows a cookie consent popup could mean that consent isn't sufficiently informed. So together, this isn't a particularly good design for a cookie consent tool. There are some potentially fatal problems that could render the consent invalid. However, it isn't obviously non-compliant – I have seen far worse.
It says They shall not confer the right [[to attend any meeting of members] and [to exercise one vote for every share held]]. The elements joined by a conjunction such as "and" should be grammatically parallel. Since the part after the conjunction is an infinitive verb phrase, the thing to which is it joined by the conjunction should also be an infinitive verb phrase. However, it is normal in English to use "or" when joining elements in a negative statement. For example, if it is forbidden to sing and it is forbidden to dance, one could post a sign saying "no singing or dancing." If the sign said "no singing and dancing" it could be interpreted as a prohibition only on doing both at once. So the sentence should read They shall not confer the right to attend any meeting of members or to exercise one vote for every share held. Perhaps less ambiguous: They shall not confer the right to attend any meeting of members or the right to exercise one vote for every share held. But the drafting error is unlikely to change the meaning of the text, since it is fairly easy to identify it as a drafting error.
I think haveibeenpwned would be legal in the EU because it carries out a task in the public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)), and it shares no more data then necessary, for example you can search for a password, but it would not show you the emailaddress which belongs to that password. It would also be legal for you to hold a copy of a leaked database, but only if you have a legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)) to have it. Being a security company does not change that, but finding a legitimate interest might be easier. If you have a legitimate interest to hold a copy of a leaked database, it does not mean you can use it in any way you like. For example testing if the password still works, is very likely illegal everywhere in the EU. But I'm not familiar with the UK laws.
First of all, the wording in your question hints at the UK deliberately launching a missile (even if it is a test one) towards the USA. Nothing in the news piece you link to support that supposition, the general idea is a missile that was launched towards the Atlantic Ocean that steered off route. From your link: The treaty recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states. The NPT limits other states from researching (including testing) nuclear weapons and/or delivery vehicles. In exchange, they get access to nuclear technology for civilian purposes. Treaty preambles are general, introductory texts that explain the intent of the treaty. They are not binding, and the language clearly shows it (Hint: It states "Desiring to", "Recalling to". Binding agreements use "Shall", "Shall not", "May" or "May not", and are more specific about what are the restrictions). As stated above, the test was not "in North-America". It was from international waters "towards Africa", probably to be sunk before it reached land1. There is no notion anywhere that there was an intention of violating the airspace of any country. Certainly, the UK would be responsable if one of their missiles test fails and the missile ends causing damages, and the USA can protest any violation of its airspace, even if unintentional. But it is not "a test of ballistic missiles in North America", and certainly the USA has no more rights outside its territorial waters than, say, Gambia does. The only restriction would be the internationally stablished procedures for testing missiles, which are setup to avoid any kind of issues (the test scheduled date and path is published2 with time enough for third parties to take notice). So yes, it is business as usual. 1Idea: African countries are countries, too, and they have the same right as the USA for their airspace not to be violated by the military from other countries. 2Both to allow for air traffic to avoid dangerous areas, and to ensure that anybody detecting the launch does not think that it is an attack.
Not Allowed Under the GDPR The suggested method does not seem to comply with the GDPR, and would not be lawful for a Data Controller that is subject to the GDPR. Specific Provisions Let's consider some specific provisions of the GDPR: Article 4 Article 4 paragraph (11) states: &quot;consent&quot; of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her; If the choice is &quot;obscure&quot; then it is not clear, and legal consent has not been given. Article 7 Article 7 paragraph 3 reads: The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. It does not appear in the situation described that the data subject has been clearly informed that consent is being given. Recital 42 Recital 42 reads in relevant part: In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC a declaration of consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and it should not contain unfair terms. ... Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment. The specified means do not seem to comply with R42 Recital 32 Recital 32 reads: Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. ... If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided. The format in the question seems to rely on inactivity as a way of giving consent, and is surely not clear.
These clauses are called recitals. Taken together, they are a form of preamble. The tradition of preambles is quite ancient. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, has a preamble. This preamble serves to establish the authority of the one enacting the laws, however, rather than his motivation. United Nations instruments typically use a series of participial phrases as preambular paragraphs (pdf) rather than subordinate clauses, but they have the same function of establishing context and motivation. I have not been able to locate the origin of this particular form of preamble, however. It seems to have evolved gradually from freely constructed preambles. I could not identify when this form became fixed.
&quot;This policy&quot; is referring to the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines as amended (basically a Terms of Service (TOS) agreement). If so, does it mean adherence to Guidlines is fixed to version current at the moment of commencement of employment? Not really. It means that Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines are primarily guidelines for members of the general public who are not employees, and that different unstated policies delivered to employees are what govern employees instead. There are consequences for Mozilla employees failing to honor the current version of the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines, but those consequences are set forth in an employment contract with the employees rather than being limited to the consequences and procedures set forth in the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines for members of the general public who aren't employees.