Live data from Hacker News

How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

pagefair.com

171–180 of 362 posts

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article 43: > In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation. Consent…

That's like a 50+ word sentence. I do hate these legal shenanigans. If you can't write it in plain English is not worth the bytes taken.

You can argue against the chosen font type, and it'd be still irrelevant. Most educated adults are able to read sentences longer than a few words. For the rest, trust your representatives.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#172
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fine, we now have an engineer building GDPR features instead of features that benefit our customers. I am not finding any shred of sympathy for your story. To me this sounds approximately as evil as saying you are a pipeline company having to comply with all of those pesky environmental and occupational regulations by spending money on worthless safety features for people working and living on or around the pipe, a…

You seem to be responding to an entirely different GP post to the one I read, which seemed pretty clear that the GP's company isn't doing the kind of tracking and analytics that a lot of people might say were "NOT OK". It's easy to post bold privacy advocacy from the cheap seats, but I suspect you wouldn't like a world where these new rules really were enforced to the letter. Many of the organisations whose products…

GP's company isn't doing the kind of tracking and analytics that a lot of people might say were "NOT OK".

GP's company isn't doing the tracking and analytics, but it is pulling data from companies that do. Therefore, regulations that affect GP's customers affect GP. This is right and proper, and I don't see what the problem is.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#173
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish more penalties were like this. This sounds great. Now these companies will finally have real incentive to comply. Hell, the percentages should be higher. That's the only way to enforce regulations. Otherwise, they'll just pay a puny fine, American style, and not do shit.

I've never understood what would happen if Google or Facebook just ignored EU regulations, claimed that they were not under the EU's jurisdiction, and ignored any judgement. Would the EU erect a great firewall at that point?

The EU has a nuclear option for google. Ireland and the netherlands are both in the EU. If google loses its incorporation in those companies, it might have to pay US taxes on repatriated US holdings.

Ireland and the Netherlands subcompanies are essential part of US Corporate tax evasion. (Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich).

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#174

Might be easier for small niche companies with no offices in the EU but willing EU customers to ask for payment via a cryptocurrency. It just seems to me in the long run, more and more laws like this will pop up, and using cryptocurrencies will get easier/ more familiar.

Nobody is going to look for SaaS on the black market, unless the service they're looking for was illegal to start with.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#176
post #31

The author believes that users have little incentive to allow Google to provide personalized Google Search results. I don't think any technical-oriented people in this thread would agree that they have "little incentive" to allow Google Search personalization. When I turn off Google Search personalization, I get inferior search results that are less likely to be what I was searching for. If you don't want your result…

The personalization is what made me switch to DDG. Google shows me too many results of what I searched for yesterday or the results of that similar search I just made. The more google tries to show results for what I think it's searching for instead of what I type into the search box the worse it gets for me.

DDG might sometimes show me some rust proofing results when I'm search for programming related things, but it least it doesn't ignore my refined searches.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#178
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will basically need to hire full-time compliance officers to deal with this. The big tech companies already have compliance officers, but GDPR is so massively invasive to businesses that even small companies now need compliance officers. Or they could, I don't know, just not collect that data in the first place.

It isn't that simple. When people think about these privacy laws that is what they think about, some evil corporation tracking tons of private info. The company I work for has no ads. It does no analytics on personal info. It does nothing you would care about. What it is is a SasS product for businesses. We aren't the controller, so we don't need permission from end users, our customers need to get permission from th…

>The company I work for has no ads. It does no analytics on personal info. It does nothing you would care about. What it is is a SasS product for businesses. We aren't the controller, so we don't need permission from end users, our customers need to get permission from their customers. But end users can ask our customer (the controller) to delete data, and our customer can ask us (the processor) to delete it.

So you do no analytics on personal info, but if someone wants their personal info deleted, you have to delete some of your data.

How does that make any sense? Doesn't that imply that you are, in fact, using their personal info? Or do you subscribe to a moral theory where e.g. browser history is not "personal info" and this is a gripe about how regulators disagree?

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#179
post #174

Might be easier for small niche companies with no offices in the EU but willing EU customers to ask for payment via a cryptocurrency. It just seems to me in the long run, more and more laws like this will pop up, and using cryptocurrencies will get easier/ more familiar.

Nobody is going to look for SaaS on the black market, unless the service they're looking for was illegal to start with.

>unless the service they're looking for was illegal to start with.

Luckily, we will always know of everything that was/is legal now will be illegal in the future, and that people/companies throughout history will always submit to the costs of regulatory compliance of all governments in the world, no matter how burdensome they may be in specific instances.

Re: How the GDPR Will Disrupt Google and Facebook

#180
My first instinct was to be pretty happy about these laws, which surprised me quite a bit. I generally identify on the libertarian/pro-capitalist side of things and "as a general rule" subscribe to the belief that government regulations are often more problematic than problem solving[0]. So I had to take a moment to analyse why I felt this way.

Here's the problem as I see it: I know all of the things that are collected, how they're collected, what shady practices are used[1] and I'm completely aware that there is no anonymity left on the internet. The old "when the product is free, you're the product" isn't lost on me. In reading this, though, I was still finding myself a little outraged[2]. I look at it this way: if yesterday, we had an web with plain old "dumb advertising" techniques limited in sophistication in the manner of television advertising in the 90s, and today we ended up with this, there would be rioting (in the USA, anyway[3]). This didn't necessarily happen slowly but it happened gradually and quietly. I remember when Facebook announced that it was adding the ability to track you on other sites that you visited while you were logged out -- that was announced and it was met with criticism (briefly, though I quit the platform about a month later in a quiet, personal, revolt).

Here's the thing - if you ask an average non-technical individual if they understand that they're being tracked on the internet, they'll shrug and say "yes". If you dig a little deeper, you'll discover that they haven't the faintest idea how deeply they're being tracked and that they don't even have an analogy in their own lives to equate that tracking to. I couldn't come up with anything to describe the extent of tracking short of extremely lengthy explanations of what's being done and used[4].

And then there's me - I understand I'm being tracked and have basically chosen the head-in-the-sand approach. I use adblock, and a few extensions that supposedly "limit tracking" (doubtful) but I know they're worthless. Here's the thing, though, what choice do we have? And that's where I concluded how I was able to land in favor of some form of regulation on this behavior[5]. It is becoming increasingly impossible to avoid interacting with companies like Google and Facebook[6]. I look at it this way -- a company that becomes a monopoly in such an important industry can exert as much, if not more, control over the citizenry than their own government[7] but without the limitations imposed by democracy.

What should be done? I'm not sure. Self-regulation isn't working. I have zero faith in government crafting any kind of law related to technology that won't be some combination of horribly ineffective, worse than what we have today, utterly breaks something really important, or is used as a means to insert something horrible (watch them try to pop in a line-item around key-escrow). I'm kind of surprised to find myself thinking that approach that looks the best, out of the options, is probably forced-competition through breaking up the companies involved and I hate that idea in principal and in practice -- it's worked just-about as well in the past.

[0] I don't want this to devolve into a flame-war of whether regulating is "good or not", though I fear I may have just stoked that flame, I'm simply providing background for contextual purposes.

[1] I half- admire the creative uses of WebRTC with STUN on what are otherwise regarded as highly reputable major news sites. It's difficult for me to not see that practice as poking a hole in my firewall and I feel no less outrage when I see that happening than I do when a piece of malware does the same thing.

[2] Part of me had forgotten the idea that when GMail was "scanning e-mails for advertising purposes", they were scanning e-mails that were coming inbound from non-GMail users who couldn't have possibly consented to that. I'm sure there's a really good counter argument, but I'd have a hard time not feeling a little violated by that practice if I weren't a GMail user, already.

[3] Probably elsewhere, but my experience is that some European countries' citizens (particularly the UK, where I have the most experience outside of the US) are more tolerant to this sort of thing whereas when I was a child, you'd have seen people gathering in militias the moment the government tried to propose something like Real ID.

[4] I can only speak anecdotally since I had this conversation with family members who are non-technical and after about two hours, had them quite disgusted -- asking how is that legal ... and these are some of the most government-skeptical conservative people you'd ever meet.

[5] And I have zero faith in the US government being able to craft a law that works. Minimally the "they must still offer the service if the user opts out" will be removed, entirely, turning the "agree to be tracked" button into the moral equivalent of the "Cookie Warning" -- something you click because you have to. And philosophically, if we weren't talking about monopolies or near-monopolies here, I'd agree with that approach.

[6] Yes, DuckDuckGo is my default search engine, everywhere. And I've now trained myself to use the shortcut to get to google for the 60-70% of searches that DDG returns unworkable results. I think it's my search patterns, which tend to be very narrow in results, causing Bing/DDG to "broaden" and ignore terms (or when used with parameters, simply yield nothing). My parents (both retired) use DDG and rarely anything else since I switched all of their browsers around (they didn't even realize I had changed it -- they don't think of Google as a company, they think of search as something "the internet just has ..."). They are perfectly happy with it.

[7] Or can work in concert with it. Requirements to hand over Facebook credentials at the border are becoming common. I'm waiting for the day when I say "yeah, I don't use that" and end up back in a little room with an angry looking man asking me a bunch of (the same; slightly rephrased) questions and responding to them with the assumption that I'm lying (personal experience on that one; not fun). I mean, after all, I'm a programmer/live on the internet/et. al., surely I must use Facebook and I'm trying to hide something! /s

Post reply on HN