GDPR: Gross Deprivation of Personality and Reason

I have been considering writing about GDPR for quite some time but resisted until today for I do not want to be occupied by stupidities too much. But since this stupidity is not only time and money consuming but even more a threat to individual freedoms, let me put down some important considerations. I know nobody will care about, but until at least a single person cares, the case is not yet lost.

First of all, I have been spending time lately not only with clients but with many services I am attached to do something in relation to GDPR. For most of my clients it was their waste of money. Considering that I am far the cheapest service provider in this respect, since I openly claim that I know nothing about GDPR and that I even do not want to know, for it goes directly against my libertarian principles, I can only imagine financial and all other costs companies are having with GDPR. But I care about my own time spent for no reason but to take care about all kind of requests about my protection!

I need no information protection!

For all of you there: I need no protection in relation to my personal information nether from the state not from any company outside of agreements and trust we have already established. Should anyone of you out there abuse my trust, I will revoke mine as well. And that is all a free person could and should do. In free society.

Since we obviously do not live in free society, I am considering sending an invoice to European Commission reimbursing time spent on GDPR stupidity.

GDPR (wrong) premises

I do not want to and will never analyse particular paragraphs, for the case of GDPR is lost from the very beginning, from the purpose.

  1. GDPR rests on a couple of premises:
  2. Weak citizens should be protected from evil acts of powerful and mean corporations by acts of governments.
  3. Weak citizens want to be digitally forgotten.
  4. Weak citizens do not want to be known.

Give me a break! (I normally use language in relation to GDPR that would be highly improper when publicized).

All premises listed and unlisted that GDPR rests on are WRONG. The only effect that GDPR is already forcing is promotion of nanny state and further deprivation of individual sovereignty, responsibility and rights.

White cars are not allowed!

But then? Is not perhaps GDPR situation akin to road traffic safety for instance. When first cars were introduced, traffic was not regulated. But when evolution of traffic brought first accidents, rules have been introduced to regulate the traffic to go as fast and as safe as possible. Isn’t the same situation with Internet traffic? Don’t we have congestions, malfunctions and accidents there as well? Do not we need not only technical regulations but also regulations of whether we are allowed to drive black cars only or white as well?

No. Sorry. We do not!

As much as we are so far not regulated regarding brands (information) we drive, information (content) on internet traffic should not be regulated. We do not want to be protected from information. Information is the sunlight that changes our body temperature and our reactions to it. Information is the color of the plant that warns us against poisoning. Information is the fact that Assad committed gas attack in Douma. … ??? Ups! Did he? Was this perhaps not fake news? Should we be protected from such fake news? But then we would be protected by (UK) government against fake news committed by UK government. While I can avoid information from any commercial brand that I lost faith in it, I cannot avoid being a citizen of at least one country! This is pervert!

Language as evolutionary tool (weapon)

As long as information and human language is understood as communication, so long such stupid notions of EU technocrats are going to emerge. Language is in a contrary to such popular notion a tool of domination. Humans enact our unique powers through language. We strive to experience such powers against us so that we can enrich our personal powers to gain the position within our communities. Language replaces battles for territories and for sexual partners in animal world. Language as a weapon is like gravity. We seldom understand that we would not exist without gravity as much as we would not exist without language as very heavy weaponry. We have to feel the pain from language to develop our personal language further. We have to be in contact with fake news so that we can upgrade our ability to detect fake news, for fake in memetic world is interrelational. Information is simply a hash added in blockchain of human relations without central authority that would prove it!

So, it should be clear that any collective action that aims to protect individuals from any information threat is damaging to that individual. Full Stop. As much as no one can live my life, no one can protect me from any information act but me alone.

Protection of personal data?

But what about a disposal of my personal data. Should not I be worried that someone reveals something that I do not want to be revealed? But then, if someone knows something about me, that something is already revealed. Facebook is all about that! All Facebook users want their personal data to be revealed and used. This is the sole purpose of Facebook form the very first day. If you do not like it, do not use it.

But then isn’t Google case slightly different. There we do not intentionally use service for our memes to be spread, but to search memes. This apparent contradiction needs further scrutiny. And I suggest that we take the issue from the positive and not from the negative side. How?

Why should I bother about what someone knows about me? What is a problem with a company having my phone number and my e mail and my birthday? And using this information to feed me with information that are in interest of that Company or individual? As it follows from previous argument, I want to receive as much as possible information; or better: I want to be the one that will select what I want and not some crazy bureaucrats in Brussels.

But isn’t GDPR enforcing this and only this? That I would have an option not to be informed. But I already have that option. I do not see information I do not want. Even more: if someone is bothering me with information I do not want, he loses his reputation by me. It is in your interest, dear company, not to bother me too much. It is in mutual interest for me and a company that addresses me that I am profiled by that company as much as possible. As much as it is in both interest that I profile that company/brand. That is the core of branding that goes into both directions: branding is profiling. More we are profiled, more we profile, less time we spent on selecting brands, information, people, memes …

The only one that dislike such memetic/branding/commercial cohabitation are Brussels bureaucrats. Profiling is the best that can happen to any individual. It is a proof that it exists as full-bodied individual!

We all want to be profiled, if we are humans

I want to be profiled! My mail is known. My phone number is +386 41 613940. I was born on September 1st 1958. What else would you want to know? I will reveal everything but that I do not want to reveal. And it is my responsibility and right to decide what to reveal and what not. I know that smart phones detect your location. I have turned it on. For I want to be known and profiled as I said. If you do not want, then reconsider once again if you are human. For humans in general want to be known. Humans want to leave a trace of what they do. This feature is constitutional for humans.

But what about abuses of my personal information? Abuses? What abuses? Should I be worried that doctor spreads around information about my health condition? No, because it is in the brand of medical profession that I trust that promises not to reveal my health condition. I do not need bureaucrats to protect me from such possible abuse. It is between me and my doctor and his profession. It is a contract between me and Facebook that I care for and Facebook cares for. Facebook has much more to lose if the trust is broken than me. I can quit the service while Facebook can only bankrupt.

As much as we say that if you cannot sustain the heat, do not enter the kitchen, we should be aware that we cannot refrain from being in the kitchen of information, fake news, promotions, positioning and so on. We as living creatures are humans only as much as we are exposed (and not protected) from such interactions. So GDPR is destroying the most precious quality that we as humans have: our humanity.

Memetic death is impossible (at least in short run)

And here we come to the last feature of GDPR that I want to take in consideration: a right to be forgotten. This right apparently should not be objected though it goes against basic human principle that each of us strives to leave a trace of its existence. The right to be forgotten is in the core of homonism. It seems that as much as one has a right to die if for any reason he or she wants to quit, as much one has a right to be forgotten.

I will leave aside that most of us but lucky few are going to be forgotten quite soon, so it really does not make sense to be frustrated about not being forgotten. But on the other hand, we have to take in account that life is like a blockchain. Once written, never erased. Time is irreversible. I cannot change the fact about my birthday. I could though change the wrong day of my birthday. I might fake my birthday to get driving license after I am going to be 90 or more. Some movie star might fake being young while in fact she is older. In first case I break the law and the case is simple. In second movie star is only ridiculing herself. I can thus execute to die as biological (genetic) creature, but I cannot in principle be forgotten as memetic creature. In this memetic sense reincarnation is not a speculation but a fact.

Who’s afraid of gossips?

Should anyone bother about fake news about him on digital media accessible by Google? Most probably 90% of fake news were produced by subjects of such fake news. People want to be known, even if by fake information. The rest are like good old analogue gossips. Can you prevent gossips? No. And why? Gossips are as much as fake news constitutional for humans. Gossips are what prevents us from being robots or creatures that exist only in heads of Brussels bureaucrats.

Let us conclude with quite plausible speculation: Victor Orban as a universal threat to individual freedoms by Brussels bureaucrats (and intellectuals) to hide the real Orwelization: GDPR.

Andrej Drapal