I'm a citizen and resident of the USA. But I have travelled often in Germany, roaming on Deutshce Telekom cell towers using a cellphone with a T-Mobile USA SIM and a US phone number. DT has collected data about my roaming in Germany, and has transferred that data to T-Mobile USA for billing and other purposes. So some of the data about me held by T-Mobile USA, which T-Mobile USA has refused to allow me to see, was collected in Germany by Deutsche Telekom.
(I could be wrong but) GDPR does not grant rights to American tourists visiting Europe unless they are residing there (e.g. established residency, not just traveling through)
Probably also a distinction to make but T-Mobile USA's international roaming isn't meant for long-term usage and they'll terminate the account if more than half a year or so is outside the US.
I always thought of the cost implication for T-Mobile before this thread, not that they are probably more concerned with legal exposure of people changing residency and trying to remain as customers.
auf deutsch: "Fast 50 Millionen US-Konten betroffen: Telekom-Gruppe verschweigt Informationen über gehackte Personendaten", Matthias Monroy, Netspolitik.org, 16.08.2022:
Fast die Hälfte der Millionen Kund:innen von T-Mobile in den USA waren vor einem Jahr Opfer eines riesigen Datenverlustes. Die Deutsche Telekom als Mutterkonzern verletzt seitdem ihre selbst auferlegten Verpflichtungen zum Datenschutz.
My subject access request was not made pursuant to the GDPR. It was made pursuant to T-Mobile's contractually binding promises to act as a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, and DTAG's promises that all subsidiaries it is able to control would adopt and comply with its "binding corporate rules" on privacy.
I got one of the "Tom Harris" messages, sent to an e-mail address scraped from the Web site of a small California-based nonprofit organization.
I've gotten no response to my e-mail messages sent to the 3 researchers who have identified themselves, or the Princeton IRB. But I was able to find phone numbers for all 3 of the researchers in their c.v.'s posted online. The Principal Investigator has yet to return my calls, but the grad student took my call. He referred most of my questions to the principal investigator, but he did tell me that they sent e-mail to between 200K and 300K addresses scraped form a list of the "top" 1M Web sites.
That depends on the state and the section of highway. There is no Federal prohibition on walking or bicycling along an Interstate highway right-of-way. State laws vary.
In California, for example, bicycling or waling on freeway shoulders is permitted except where specifically prohibited and signed. Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibted from most California Interstate highways where there are alterantives bicycle and pedestrian routes, but there are mnay California Interstates on which bicyclists and pedesrians are allowed, including sections of I-5, I-10, and I-80.
In California, state law expressly allows walking along a freeway in an emergency:
When i first visited Shanghai in 1989, there were no bridges or tunnels between the Bund sid eof the river and the Pudong side, only the ferries. (pudong was mostly farms.) The ferries are less used now, but there are still some in operation, incluidng some that run 24 hours a day:
I think the TSA's theory is that if you can answer questions about the data in the Accurint record about person X correctly (i.e. your answers match the Accurint record, even if it is erroneous), you must be person X. That's the essential assumption behind the current IVCC scheme, except that it is operated by the TSA rather than a contractor.
https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/10/12/cbp-changes-procedure...