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

71–80 of 192 posts

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#71

Post by Silhouette »

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…

That one's more interesting because under the new regime, consent means meaningful, genuine consent. Demanding consent for one purpose in return for providing something important but unrelated is one of the big no-nos.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#72

Post by kgwgk »

TillE wrote: post #67
fiiv wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Brian! Thanks for taking part in the discussion. But what part of GDPR was it that caused you to have to close off European Union users?

It's worth noting that GDPR applies to EU citizens regardless of where they happen to be in the world (or if they're using a proxy), so an IP ban does absolutely nothing to help comply with the law. You'd think a real company would have talked to a lawyer about this.

No, it doesn't apply to EU citizens regardless of where they happen to be in the world.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#73

Post by ohtwenty »

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.

Everything is, there was a big deal here in the Netherlands about the local governments having to be compliant as well. The first thing that the dutch agency will check (no fines, but just make sure) is that each municipality has things set up properly.

On top of that, I don't think there's anything in the GDPR limiting it to internet related things, so brick & mortar stores will have to be compliant as well, afaik.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#74

Post by [deleted] »

gerbilly wrote: post #51

I've been in the internet since the 80s. Man what a nice thing we've built. We have turned the internet into a network where people snitch on each other to marketers for fractions of a penny.

[deleted]

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#75

Post by eli »

eli wrote: post #49
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.

I think there's also a sizable number of companies that basically were already compliant... but aren't sure. It's not like you can submit your processes to the EU for approval. You don't actually know if what you're doing is OK unless, some day, a regulator decides it isn't.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#76

Post by robin_reala »

pc86 wrote: post #54
gerbilly wrote: post #51

I've been in the internet since the 80s. Man what a nice thing we've built. We have turned the internet into a network where people snitch on each other to marketers for fractions of a penny.

The 80s? Were you involved in ARPANet or something?

I first went onto the internet in 1990 when my BBS got a connection. It was quite well developed by the end of the 80s.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#78

Post by ioulian »

detuur wrote: post #58
adtac wrote: post #28

The Yahoo! one [1] is definitely in violation of GDPR, right? GDPR doesn't cover me as I'm neither in the EU nor am I an EU citizen, so I really hope someone lets the regulators know about this. The first major penalty will be example setting. Which made me curious: could a service exist where citizens not covered by GDPR submit complaints, so that a GDPR-covered citizen could put the complaint in formally? [1] Hidde…

Yahoo is bad, especially concerning the opt-in, but by far not the worst. Those are Google and Facebook, which have made all of their services "all-or-nothing". If you don't accept every single bit of data processing, your only alternative is to delete your account. Literally runs counter to everything the GDPR stands for.

You are right, no "normal" person would want to delete their google/facebook account, so they just "accept" the tracking.

I mean, if you already have a android phone, NEST and use google everyday, would you want to delete your account? You can live without facebook, but google makes a lot of hardware that is quite useful.

Let see how it all ends :D

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#79

Post by kuschku »

dingo_bat wrote: post #17
xmodem wrote: post #5

The Instapaper one - #1 - is troubling for a non-obvious reason. One of the tenets of GDPR is that you have to be told how your data is being used. So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. If I used Instapaper I'd be filing a complaint with my local DPA about this.

> So the only explanation for this behaviour is that there's some shady shit going down that they want to stop before they have to admit to it. No, it can something as simple as "we cannot guarantee that all your data is deleted with our current storage system". It would be a lot better if people stop being so alarmist.

The deletion doesn’t have to happen immediately, just in a reasonable time frame. A few weeks is okay, too.

So if it was just that, they wouldn’t shut down.

Re: GDPR Hall of Shame

#80

Post by matte_black »

class4behavior wrote: post #60
matte_black wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

...which is made possible by both directly and indirectly collecting, evaluating, sharing or trading, and concatenating data about you.

...just so you can block and ignore the ads, all the same.
Post reply on HN