lol what - just because a government entity says something, doesn't mean it's fact. You're grasping at straws and undermining actual fights for data privacy.
There is nothing of fact here - as I said in my comments before and I'll say again - it's a case-by-case basis, but as it stands, this is not covered under GDPR. Everything you linked to is pending actual decisions, as this area of GDPR is still being figured out. Yet, for some reason, people are stating it as fact.
That's not what an "online identifier" is under GDPR. Those are RFID tags, cookies, device fingerprints, IP addresses, etc: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/
That's not what an "online identifier" is under GDPR. Those are RFID tags, cookies, device fingerprints, IP addresses, etc: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/
There is also CCPA in California - but none of these offer a total blanket/shield of protection like people are positing here. It's still a completely grey area that has, so far, not sided with users of sites.
Debatable? Yes, as that still hasn't been figured out at a higher level, and this is still handled on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, they are free to keep your data, and simply no longer keep the association with your email.
I do - I work with this daily. It would be a massive uphill battle to even prove in a court that your whole post history is considered "identifying". It's a case-by-base basis. On top of that, your data could still be easily stored and simply no longer associated with your email (but still can be kept if the previous cannot be proven about identification). Then this would have to be tested, on a that same case-by-case basis, for every single user that made a request.
To quote yourself, "please don't state things if you don't know what you're talking about."