331–340 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without given user consent. you mean just create a checkbox somewhere that people click without thinking about it? I have no idea what I am consenting to when I "agree" to all the EULAs.
Read up. Consent under GDPR is like you've never seen before, but like (as a private citizen) you've always dreamed of.
I don't think the legislators understand the technical complexity it would take to comply with GDPR nor the benefits of tracking for the internet. Tracking makes markets more efficient. 1. Advertisers can tune their ads/targeting to get higher conversions and sales. They pay higher PPMs and PPCs. 2. Publishers get higher PPMs and PPCs. This motivates them to invest more in their content and website because each new u…
I do not see any.
> They pay higher PPMs and PPCs.
As a user, I do not care.
> Publishers get higher PPMs and PPCs.
Don't care either.
> Users get more relevant and safer ads
Sorry but that's outright bullshit. In practice, targeted ads feel absolutely worse (at least for me), as an example I remember buying an umbrella a year ago on Amazon... guess what do I still get recommended to me on there? F'ing umbrellas... I know I'm in the UK but come on, one is enough.
> Remember the shady banner ads of the late 90's and 2000's?
I still see that garbage all over the place, including from supposedly "reputable" ad providers with apparently top-notch tracking like Google. Fake antivirus software or tech support scams are still common on there.
> Users get personalized content from publishers. This has a few negatives but I would argue that it greatly improves user experience.
That's my other problem with tracking-based ads, as it creates an echo chamber. I'd much prefer getting "irrelevant" ads as it makes me discover products I would've never otherwise thought about. I prefer print & real-world billboard ads for this reason as they're generic and expose me to stuff I wouldn't see otherwise.
GDPR articles seem to be getting some traction on HN as everyone is trying to figure out: "Do I need to do something for this? Is so, what?" For a recent project I read (and translated to plain english) [1] every single article in the GDPR legislation and for our purposes it can be summed up as: "Treat user data like names and emails as if they were credit card numbers" AKA: be paranoid about keeping them, encrypt th…
Honestly, the best thing to do if you don’t have a high percentage of EU users/customers is to simply block EU IPs. First it was the completely useless cookie notifications, now it’s GDPR, and nobody knows what the next thing will be - we only know that there will be a next thing (there always is), and that it too will be costly and burdensome to comply with. Unless you derive a significant percentage of your revenue…
In fact, I think the author is underestimating the impact, right here: "Of course, making this change will have a dramatic impact on your revenue for single-visit traffic, because you basically have to design your ad model to work completely differently from how it works today." No, it will basically make a newsmedia site unprofitable. I think it is the EU that has not fully thought this through. Most of the news ind…
The most simplest solution is that newspapers host the ad on their own server as a .png or .jpg that gets shown to all visitors. It's tracking free and GDPR compliant.
GDPR articles seem to be getting some traction on HN as everyone is trying to figure out: "Do I need to do something for this? Is so, what?" For a recent project I read (and translated to plain english) [1] every single article in the GDPR legislation and for our purposes it can be summed up as: "Treat user data like names and emails as if they were credit card numbers" AKA: be paranoid about keeping them, encrypt th…
Honestly, the best thing to do if you don’t have a high percentage of EU users/customers is to simply block EU IPs. First it was the completely useless cookie notifications, now it’s GDPR, and nobody knows what the next thing will be - we only know that there will be a next thing (there always is), and that it too will be costly and burdensome to comply with. Unless you derive a significant percentage of your revenue…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do American constitutional protections apply to Americans living in France? I am having a hard time understanding GDPR jurisdictional power. US citizens in France aren’t protected by the US Fair Credit Act with French banks, even when those French banks have US subisidiaries because a French company in France isn’t subject to US legal jurisdiction. Even FATCA doesn’t subject a French bank to US law — it subjects F…
> This idea that EU citizens are protected worldwide is just ridiculous. EU jurisdiction doesn’t extend beyond the EU. You are the only person who has this view. EU citizens are subject to the local laws of whatever country they reside in. However if they are interacting with an EU company then GDPR applies to that company, no matter where they reside. But an EU citizen living in America and using an American service…
There is no jurisdiction if those companies don't have a presence in the EU. None. Show us international law where this would be applicable. As the grandparent was pointing out, any country can now make any law where if any of their citizens access some internet service where ever in the world, somehow their laws magically apply to everybody in the world "doing business over some fiber".
I don't think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Treat user data like names and emails as if they were credit card numbers" Most sites' approach to credit card numbers is to not touch them with a barge pole, have a third party receive them instead and never let the business have any sight of them, so it's a bit of a stretch to expect the same treatment for a customer's name and email address.
So...use oauth?
In fact, I think the author is underestimating the impact, right here: "Of course, making this change will have a dramatic impact on your revenue for single-visit traffic, because you basically have to design your ad model to work completely differently from how it works today." No, it will basically make a newsmedia site unprofitable. I think it is the EU that has not fully thought this through. Most of the news ind…
> No, it will basically make a newsmedia site unprofitable. Good. We don't need that much "news" anyway. And I think my need would be more than covered by national TV which is sponsored by taxpayers money and BBC, which also has no advertising. There really won't be much of the value lost if we won't have sensationalized and invented news any more. Another point to consider is that need for news or just for some brai…
The "we" is where you have a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, the best thing to do if you don’t have a high percentage of EU users/customers is to simply block EU IPs. First it was the completely useless cookie notifications, now it’s GDPR, and nobody knows what the next thing will be - we only know that there will be a next thing (there always is), and that it too will be costly and burdensome to comply with. Unless you derive a significant percentage of your revenue…
So basically we create a law to protect user data and your answer is "let's only work with countries that think messing up with my users is ok" ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This idea that EU citizens are protected worldwide is just ridiculous. EU jurisdiction doesn’t extend beyond the EU. You are the only person who has this view. EU citizens are subject to the local laws of whatever country they reside in. However if they are interacting with an EU company then GDPR applies to that company, no matter where they reside. But an EU citizen living in America and using an American service…
GDPR explicitly states that it (generally) only applies to companies which do business with people who are within the EU's borders (citizenship is not a prerequisite of GDPR protection) or EU businesses. There is no jurisdiction if those companies don't have a presence in the EU. None. Show us international law where this would be applicable. As the grandparent was pointing out, any country can now make any law where…
If you are doing business with people in the EU, then you have to be incorporated or otherwise have agreements (explicit or implicit) with the EU countries you are doing business with. GDPR applies to you or you will no longer be able to do business with the EU. If a company wishes to not have their ability do business with the EU revoked, they have to comply with GDPR (including its fines) as well as all other EU (and local) laws.
I really don't understand how this concept is difficult to grasp. Countries give you permission to do business with them -- if you break their laws they can revoke your ability to do business with their residents. Most large companies would probably lose much more money breaking off ties with the EU than they would complying with GDPR fines. If you continue to violate a country's laws you could be extradited and so on.
> somehow their laws magically apply to everybody in the world "doing business over some fiber".
If you are providing a service to a group of people, for money, then you are doing business with them. Pretending as though this is not the case just because the process is conducted through under-sea fiber cables rather than mail couriers is ridiculous.