Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GDPR Hall of Shame

gdprhallofshame.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 192 posts

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#41

Post by matte_black »

some_account wrote: post #24
matte_black wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not the product. Exposure to you is the product.

No its not just showing you ads. Its selling any information they have on you to ad networks without you knowing about it.

...so that you can be shown more ads.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#42

Post by kgwgk »

bo1024 wrote: post #23

I want to know if credit card companies Mastercard, Visa, etc. are subject to GDPR. They definitely sell or use your purchase data for purposes unrelated to the service.

Do they? Non-aggregated data, I mean.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#43

Post by [deleted] »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #38
eli wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's extremely uncharitable.

I think we should reserve opinion here until bthdonohue gets back with fiiv's comment of "But what part of GDPR was it that caused you to have to close off European Union users?"

[deleted]

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#44

Post by PeterisP »

I nominate Slate https://slate.com/privacy for a creative interpretation of GDPR article 7.3 "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent" (the "consent" happens through an uncloseable window with no other options where a single click sets that cookie):

"The Right to Withdraw Consent. If you would like to opt-out at any time, please delete the “gdpr_consent_1” cookie from your browser window. You will have to opt-in again in order to view Slate content."

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#46

Post by matte_black »

GDPR and policies like it are an existential threat to a Big Data future where so much can be possible if we are able to amass as much data as possible without fear of consequences.

GDPR should be resisted by as many companies and startups as possible.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#47

Post by IncRnd »

chrisper wrote: post #7

The #2 one seems a bit off. "RE:" stands for Regarding. Yes it makes people look at your email, but it isn't "fake."

In every email program, RE: stands for Reply. RE: is prefixed to a subject for showing that the current email is a reply to an earlier email. That is what is deceptive.

RE: is not Regarding in this context but appears designed to increase acceptance by lying about the recipient receiving a response to an earlier non-existent communication.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#48

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

chrisper wrote: post #7

The #2 one seems a bit off. "RE:" stands for Regarding. Yes it makes people look at your email, but it isn't "fake."

I had this thought too, but this isn't the common usage and therefore someone was being deliberately deceptive when they decided to use it.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#49

Post by eli »

Drakim wrote: post #13

"Whoops, we can't secretly sell your data anymore! That means you can't control your smart wifi lightbulbs from now on!" For me, this is a refutation of the "If you don't pay for the product, you are the product." There is no inherent reason why a company would only do that for a free product. If it works for free products, it works just the same for paid products. Even if GDPR has flaws, and is gonna cause some disr…

For sure, GDPR is causing headaches for companies that were secretly selling your data. But it's also a big problem for companies that were (perhaps sloppily) logging & storing data for their own reasons or maybe even for no real reason. I think the latter is much more common than the former.
Post reply on HN