our world and data does they do have some legitimate research because that's what think tanks do. They launder illegitimate research with legitimate research. uh and their tactic primarily is to uh set the scope of what they are commenting on or researching uh that it you know it puts forward the kind of results that they want uh that aligns with their ideology.

1/ It fits into existing spec based testing infrastructure nicely, including running on travis, code coverage using SimpleCov, switching between generating a profile (RubyProf), a benchmark (Benchmark::IPS) or normal test run. 2/ Some of my benchmarks do have expect clauses to validate that things are working before invoking the benchmark.

I just wanted to mention there was, IMHO, a valid use case for this. It helps add to the validity of the ticket and the design of the feature.

The anarchist inspiration is clear than ever here: social complexity without “monopoly of legitimate violence” has been possible before, and can be possible again.

Some vendors may relay on legitimate interest instead of consent for the processing of personal data. The User Interface specifies if a specific vendor is relating on legitimate interest as legal basis, meaning that that vendor will process user’s data for the declared purposes without asking for their consent. The presence of vendors relying on legitimate interest is the reason why within the user interface, even if a user has switched on one specific purpose, not all vendors processing data for that purpose will be displayed as switched on. In fact, those vendors processing data for that specific purpose, relying only on legitimate interest will be displayed as switched off.

Sure, anti-spam measures such as a CAPTCHA would certainly fall under "legitimate interests". But would targeting cookies? The gotcha with reCAPTCHA is that this legitimate-interest, quite-necessary-in-today's-world feature is inextricably bundled with unwanted and unrelated Google targeting (cookiepedia.co.uk/cookies/NID) cookies (_ga, _gid for v2; NID for v3).

U.K. Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham clearly states that consent is not the "silver bullet" for GDPR compliance. In many instances, consent will not be the most appropriate ground — for example, when the processing is based on a legal obligation or when the organization has a legitimate interest in processing personal data.

As serious leaks become more common, surely we can expect tougher laws. But these laws are also making it difficult for those of us who wish to improve security by studying actual data. For years we have fought increasingly restrictive laws but the government’s argument has always been that it would only affect criminals.

The data is stored in log files to ensure the functionality of the website. In addition, the data serves us to optimize the website and to ensure the security of our information technology systems. An evaluation of the data for marketing purposes does not take place in this context. The legal basis for the temporary storage of the data and the log files is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR. Our legitimate interests lie in the above-mentioned purposes.

The temporary storage of the IP address by the system is necessary to enable the website to be delivered to the user's computer. For this the IP address of the user must remain stored for the duration of the session.

The legal basis for the processing of personal data using cookies is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR. Our legitimate interests lie in the above-mentioned purposes.

Another approach I toyed with (very transiently) was blocking entire countries from accessing the API. I was always really hesitant to do this, but when 90% of the API traffic was suddenly coming from a country in West Africa, for example, that was a pretty quick win.

Well, as a home user, I also belong to an investment club with 10 members. I also have a medium size family who I like to send photo's to, and my son is on a soccer team. all those have greater than 5 people on the list. sooooooooo..... once again, the people with valid use of the internet have to 'deal' with those that abuse it.

legitimate interest triggers when “processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject

Legitimate interest. When there is a genuine reason for processing personal data without consent. Interpretations of this legal ground may vary, but a good example would be risk assessment or checking children’s age, such as in an online liquor store.

some examples of legitimate interest (although their main aim is to emphasize what rights, freedoms and so on override legitimate interest)

An example of reliance on legitimate interests includes a computer store, using only the contact information provided by a customer in the context of a sale, serving that customer with direct regular mail marketing of similar product offerings — accompanied by an easy-to-select choice of online opt-out.

This is no different where legitimate interests applies – see the examples below from the DPN. It should also be made clear that individuals have the right to object to processing of personal data on these grounds.

Individuals can object to data processing for legitimate interests (Article 21 of the GDPR) with the controller getting the opportunity to defend themselves, whereas where the controller uses consent, individuals have the right to withdraw that consent and the ‘right to erasure’. The DPN observes that this may be a factor in whether companies rely on legitimate interests.

It is a subject that can be treated systematically.