February 5, 2019 at 5:09 am
Michael L John - Friday, February 1, 2019 9:15 AMHow many times has significant data loss occurred because of infrastructure issues? Availability, definitely , but not not data loss. It seems as if every data loss issue I've had or seen was due to human error.
And, I classify a server crash, and not having any backup/recovery plan in place as a human error!
Oh, it's rare, but I've seen it. Once, we had a switch that was corrupting pages as they transferred and some of that hit the database (and no, I couldn't begin to explain how that worked, only that's what happened). Another time we had a disk controller go bad and it was writing corrupt pages out to disk. However, yeah, the rest of the data loss was because someone did something stupid.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
February 5, 2019 at 5:24 am
Grant Fritchey - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:09 AMOh, it's rare, but I've seen it. Once, we had a switch that was corrupting pages as they transferred and some of that hit the database (and no, I couldn't begin to explain how that worked, only that's what happened). Another time we had a disk controller go bad and it was writing corrupt pages out to disk. However, yeah, the rest of the data loss was because someone did something stupid.
Think of a high transaction volume managed database, lets say 30K/sek, which is backed up / snapshot every 5 minutes and destroyed 4:59 after the last backup/snapshot. That would be a potential loss of 8970000 transactions:blush:
😎
February 5, 2019 at 8:16 am
Eirikur Eiriksson - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:24 AMThink of a high transaction volume managed database, lets say 30K/sek, which is backed up / snapshot every 5 minutes and destroyed 4:59 after the last backup/snapshot. That would be a potential loss of 8970000 transactions:blush:
😎
For sure, but don't you think they've actually got other items in place if you're doing 30k/sec? Maybe not, but likely.
Not that this isn't a big mistake, and Azure ought to be taken to task for this, but to pretend for an individual customer that this isn't something they'd do in house is just berating the cloud without being honest. This is precisely the type of scripting admins would set up or make mistakes while building/testing.
February 5, 2019 at 8:26 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 8:16 AMEirikur Eiriksson - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:24 AMThink of a high transaction volume managed database, lets say 30K/sek, which is backed up / snapshot every 5 minutes and destroyed 4:59 after the last backup/snapshot. That would be a potential loss of 8970000 transactions:blush:
😎For sure, but don't you think they've actually got other items in place if you're doing 30k/sec? Maybe not, but likely.
Not that this isn't a big mistake, and Azure ought to be taken to task for this, but to pretend for an individual customer that this isn't something they'd do in house is just berating the cloud without being honest. This is precisely the type of scripting admins would set up or make mistakes while building/testing.
"Luckily", one is forced to use VMs for this purpose, the performance of the Azure Sql Database instances will not reach this performance scale
😎
As I said previously, it's WYPIWYG, the business has to decide, not us techies.
February 8, 2019 at 5:53 am
Hey Jeff!
Do you lend out the launcher to family & friends? If so, you've given it to the wrong person. If not, dude, go check on it, because I think it was stolen. Reference.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
February 8, 2019 at 10:52 am
Grant Fritchey - Friday, February 8, 2019 5:53 AMHey Jeff!
Do you lend out the launcher to family & friends? If so, you've given it to the wrong person. If not, dude, go check on it, because I think it was stolen. Reference.
WOW! I think someone may have forwarded the launcher to an unauthorized person. At least it didn't collect any dust. Thanks for sharing the link, Grant.
February 8, 2019 at 11:46 am
Ed Wagner - Friday, February 8, 2019 10:52 AMGrant Fritchey - Friday, February 8, 2019 5:53 AMHey Jeff!
Do you lend out the launcher to family & friends? If so, you've given it to the wrong person. If not, dude, go check on it, because I think it was stolen. Reference.WOW! I think someone may have forwarded the launcher to an unauthorized person. At least it didn't collect any dust. Thanks for sharing the link, Grant.
Was there an EUC in place?
😎
February 8, 2019 at 7:06 pm
Grant Fritchey - Friday, February 8, 2019 5:53 AMHey Jeff!
Do you lend out the launcher to family & friends? If so, you've given it to the wrong person. If not, dude, go check on it, because I think it was stolen. Reference.
Nah... she's a loner on this. If I had taught her how to throw one without the use of a launcher, it would have done it's damage and returned to her hand like a boomerang. 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 9, 2019 at 4:55 am
Interesting development on Stack Overflow, where they shared email addresses to Amazon without consent. This is a meta post on it (with response from one of their product managers): Please don't share my e-mail with Amazon without my express consent.
I'm actually intrigued which direction this'll go. Certainly, I agree that the user's rights (at least under GDPR) were broken and PII data was shared, however, this is possibly more of a grey area; was implied consent given considering that the user did say they wished to have the opportunity to receive the Amazon gift card? Wonder if anything will come of this, or if it'll be used to set a precedence in the future.
In truth, though, I expected better data governance from a entity like Stack Overflow, who's main focus is the IT industry; a sector that was was affected by GDPR and similar legislations at a very fundamental level. You would have hoped that whomever was "in charge" knew they couldn't just give Amazon the email addresses.
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
February 9, 2019 at 11:28 am
Thom A - Saturday, February 9, 2019 4:55 AMInteresting development on Stack Overflow, where they shared email addresses to Amazon without consent. This is a meta post on it (with response from one of their product managers): Please don't share my e-mail with Amazon without my express consent.I'm actually intrigued which direction this'll go. Certainly, I agree that the user's rights (at least under GDPR) were broken and PII data was shared, however, this is possibly more of a grey area; was implied consent given considering that the user did say they wished to have the opportunity to receive the Amazon gift card? Wonder if anything will come of this, or if it'll be used to set a precedence in the future.
In truth, though, I expected better data governance from a entity like Stack Overflow, who's main focus is the IT industry; a sector that was was affected by GDPR and similar legislations at a very fundamental level. You would have hoped that whomever was "in charge" knew they couldn't just give Amazon the email addresses.
Wow. That's something and yeah, totally a GDPR violation (also a violation of the CPP if it was in force, next year). Not cool at all.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
February 9, 2019 at 6:59 pm
I'm a little torn on this.There was an agreement to provide a gift card from the web, which is a business transaction. Fulfilling this is a business purpose and the common way to do this is send a GC to an email. I don't know any company that collects GCs themselves and sends them out. They would outsource this to the vendor.
Let's twist this. A company agrees to send you a book. They then send your email to a third party that fulfills shipments, like FedEx. Do you consider that a GDPR violation if your address is shared? I'm not sure that makes sense.
I would argue that this is perhaps annoying or disliked, but the sharing of the email for the gift is not a GDPR violation. I'd also argue that Amazon has the right to contact you about the GC, since until you redeem it, they may have an accounting liability here. Perhaps there is some argument about how much they can contact you, or if they include other info, but there is some business relationship here.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
February 10, 2019 at 6:02 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Saturday, February 9, 2019 6:59 PMI'm a little torn on this.There was an agreement to provide a gift card from the web, which is a business transaction. Fulfilling this is a business purpose and the common way to do this is send a GC to an email. I don't know any company that collects GCs themselves and sends them out. They would outsource this to the vendor.Let's twist this. A company agrees to send you a book. They then send your email to a third party that fulfills shipments, like FedEx. Do you consider that a GDPR violation if your address is shared? I'm not sure that makes sense.
I would argue that this is perhaps annoying or disliked, but the sharing of the email for the gift is not a GDPR violation. I'd also argue that Amazon has the right to contact you about the GC, since until you redeem it, they may have an accounting liability here. Perhaps there is some argument about how much they can contact you, or if they include other info, but there is some business relationship here.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
All reasonable, but what's not there is the explanation from the people handling your data that they will be sending your information to Amazon. The definition of what is done with your personal information is part of the GDPR and I think that's where the violation comes in. Not the sharing itself. You've explained exactly why that's a normal process and no arguments.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
February 10, 2019 at 6:37 am
Grant Fritchey - Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:02 AMAll reasonable, but what's not there is the explanation from the people handling your data that they will be sending your information to Amazon. The definition of what is done with your personal information is part of the GDPR and I think that's where the violation comes in. Not the sharing itself. You've explained exactly why that's a normal process and no arguments.
I imagine this is all going to come down to implied consent. Were the users warned/advised that their information (such as email address) was going to be shared with Amazon at the time of participating? No. Was there implied consent that the user is happy for Amazon to contact them in regards to the Gift Card they have been awarded, upon participating in a scheme that could/will reward you with a Gift Card? Arguably.
Something should have, at least, been in Stack Overflow's Privacy Policy. Having a read of that page that may be included under the clause "necessary for a third party’s, or our, legitimate interests"and then the marketing section (which may have been updated since the other day):
Marketing and Product Communications
From time to time, Stack Overflow may communicate with you about commercial and other Product and Services offerings. In doing so, we provide you with an opportunity to opt-out of such messages at any time you choose via your account settings. Stack Overflow will not sell your personal information to enhance our marketing opportunities or profitability (except as may relate to a corporate event such as a sale or merger), and as we are committed to preventing spam, our direct marketing efforts are limited in scope and frequency. We engage in such activities as a legitimate business interest in order to promote key Products and Service offerings and provide you with every opportunity to unsubscribe from such communications or to further limit their scope and frequency. In short, while we want to communicate some key commercial communications with you and have determined it to be a legitimate interest for us to be able to do so, you have the final say in whether or not you would like to receive such commercial communications from us. You can review or change your permissions in your Email Settings.
If so then, provided that Amazon provided an opt-out option as well and haven't processed the users data further than to supply them with a Gift Card, I would suggest that what Stack Overflow did was "ok", but perhaps they should have made the fact that the user's email address would be shared more transparent. Does it mean that the user's privacy was breach, still a grey area in my view. Like I thought before, I imagine this'll be used to set a precedence more than anything. If anything is taken against Stack Over I imagine it's be some (very) stern words or otherwise a token fine.
On a side note to Steve's earlier point, when I worked for a large retail company, we did create "pre loaded" online gift cards and supply those to 3rd parties. Now it may be that Amazon had agreed to supply a number (of Gift Cards codes) to Stack Overflow, based on SO's expectation of about 500 users, but due to far more users participating than SO anticipated Amazon were not happy to provide over 500 Gift Card codes. As a result, to provide the users with a "quick" solution they provided those email addresses to Amazon, so that the users could receive the Gift Cards.
Thom~
Excuse my typos and sometimes awful grammar. My fingers work faster than my brain does.
Larnu.uk
February 11, 2019 at 10:08 am
I have no idea what the terms were. The live Developer Survey doesn't do this, and I suspect that the marketing department likely noted that fulfillment would be through Amazon or some other shop. If they disclosed that, then I would still argue there is no violation here. It's reasonable and common to understand that the shop providing the GC might be doing the fulfillment, in which case they get your email or snail mail.
It is likely a gray area, but I wouldn't be quick to condemn SO on this. I think far too many people are assuming that they can control business processes with regards to their information and they cannot. The company needs to disclose this, but they really need to publish this not ensure that you read the T&C or rules of the contest and call it out specially. If they provided information that an Amazon GC could be used, the common method is load the email into Amazon, whether individually or by XLS. Then Amazon sends the code.
February 11, 2019 at 10:41 am
Thom A - Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:37 AMGrant Fritchey - Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:02 AMAll reasonable, but what's not there is the explanation from the people handling your data that they will be sending your information to Amazon. The definition of what is done with your personal information is part of the GDPR and I think that's where the violation comes in. Not the sharing itself. You've explained exactly why that's a normal process and no arguments.I imagine this is all going to come down to implied consent. Were the users warned/advised that their information (such as email address) was going to be shared with Amazon at the time of participating? No. Was there implied consent that the user is happy for Amazon to contact them in regards to the Gift Card they have been awarded, upon participating in a scheme that could/will reward you with a Gift Card? Arguably.
Something should have, at least, been in Stack Overflow's Privacy Policy. Having a read of that page that may be included under the clause "necessary for a third party’s, or our, legitimate interests"and then the marketing section (which may have been updated since the other day):
Marketing and Product Communications
From time to time, Stack Overflow may communicate with you about commercial and other Product and Services offerings. In doing so, we provide you with an opportunity to opt-out of such messages at any time you choose via your account settings. Stack Overflow will not sell your personal information to enhance our marketing opportunities or profitability (except as may relate to a corporate event such as a sale or merger), and as we are committed to preventing spam, our direct marketing efforts are limited in scope and frequency. We engage in such activities as a legitimate business interest in order to promote key Products and Service offerings and provide you with every opportunity to unsubscribe from such communications or to further limit their scope and frequency. In short, while we want to communicate some key commercial communications with you and have determined it to be a legitimate interest for us to be able to do so, you have the final say in whether or not you would like to receive such commercial communications from us. You can review or change your permissions in your Email Settings.
If so then, provided that Amazon provided an opt-out option as well and haven't processed the users data further than to supply them with a Gift Card, I would suggest that what Stack Overflow did was "ok", but perhaps they should have made the fact that the user's email address would be shared more transparent. Does it mean that the user's privacy was breach, still a grey area in my view. Like I thought before, I imagine this'll be used to set a precedence more than anything. If anything is taken against Stack Over I imagine it's be some (very) stern words or otherwise a token fine.
On a side note to Steve's earlier point, when I worked for a large retail company, we did create "pre loaded" online gift cards and supply those to 3rd parties. Now it may be that Amazon had agreed to supply a number (of Gift Cards codes) to Stack Overflow, based on SO's expectation of about 500 users, but due to far more users participating than SO anticipated Amazon were not happy to provide over 500 Gift Card codes. As a result, to provide the users with a "quick" solution they provided those email addresses to Amazon, so that the users could receive the Gift Cards.
First of all, I agree with you - I think Stack Overflow did nothing wrong. Participants know they're up for an Amazon gift card, it's reasonable to conclude that Amazon would provide it. If they don't want Amazon to provide it, don't participate.
However, I don't know that phrases like "okay", "all reasonable" or "normal process" really apply here. This is about law and bureaucracy, so common sense does not necessarily apply. The intent of any law is far too often much different than the implementation of it. I, too, will be watching with great interest to see how it plays out.
Viewing 15 posts - 63,091 through 63,105 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply