Open baltpeter opened 2 years ago
Actually, never mind. :D Despite what the auto-responder said, they did reply after all.
Oh wow, never mind^2: They replied to the email I forwarded to GDPR@vungle.com. -.-
Isn't their webpage a valid source for the E-Mail address? https://vungle.com/blog/gdpr-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters-to-you-part-1-of-3/
I'm working on automatic verification of our records that basically goes through all the listed sources and checks whether the email (and other contact details) are (still) listed, with the idea being to detect when a company changes their contact details.
That's why I've disregarded this source. Should they ever change their email, I'd say it's fairly unlikely that they'd update this page since that seems to me like a random one-off blog post that they've probably already forgot about.
But I'm not set on that opinion. I'd be interested what you and other people think about this tradeoff. Should we use the better email that we (likely) can't verify automatically in the future or should we use the email that requires an extra step but can be verified automatically?
Okey, thanks, now I better understand the issue. I'd propose to add a flag if the address is verifiable as I assume this is not the only case, it's not.
When you contact privacy@vungle.com (the email listed in their privacy policy), they tell you that it isn't monitored for inbound mail and you should contact GDPR@vungle.com instead.
Usually, I would just update the record accordingly but the problem is that GDPR@vungle.com doesn't seem to be listed anywhere publicly. As our plan is to automatically validate the contact details in the records soon, this is a problem. I also really don't like to list contact details that aren't easily verifiable.
How do we want to deal with this?
One option might be to publicly host their auto-response somewhere and list that as the source. The problem with this is that we would then never notice if this ever changes in the future. The checking tool would always find GDPR@vungle.com listed in our "own" source and assume it's correct.