Live data from Hacker News

GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

bbc.com

341–350 of 680 posts

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition, and thereby increase monopoly and creating central hubs of systemic risk. There is no free lunch with one-size-fits-all rule making. Unfortunately regulators think there is.

I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents.

Snark aside, that doesn't dispute the thesis that regulations tend to favor incumbents.

Some regulations are good. Some regulations are bad. Some regulations are smart. Some regulations are dumb. Reasonable people can disagree on the quality or intelligence of a given regulation, or its impact on a given industry, but that doesn't change that most regulations do tend to make products more expensive to manufacture and by proxy, more expensive to buy.

In Europe, if you want to sell eggs, you're required not to wash them or get them wet, because doing so erodes the natural coating that protects them from diseases. This is a regulation implemented to prevent salmonella.

In America, if you want to sell eggs, you're required to wash them in water at least 90 degrees, to make sure that they're clean, then rinse them with a chemically infused spray, then because you've got them wet, they need to be thoroughly dried to prevent bacterial growth. Further, because you've now washed and dried them, removing the natural protective coating, they need to be refrigerated in transit, at the store, and at home.

Both regulations are imposed to defend against Salmonella, and both are apparently quite effective, but the American regulations in play require the purchase of (conservatively) thousands of dollars in washing, sanitizing and drying equipment, and at least a partnership with a refrigerated trucking company. If you're selling the eggs in California, there's the additional requirement that the eggs were laid by free-range hens, which of course increases the amount of land required to raise the chickens upon, which of course makes it harder to prevent and protect the hens against predators.

Like I said, reasonable people can disagree on any given regulation, but it's hard to make the claim that egg regulations in America are more effective than those in Europe, or that the American regulatory environment doesn't make it the egg business a more capital intensive affair.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#342
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents.

Airbags and seat belts were installed in cars long before they were required by regulators. The same goes for improvements in fuel efficiency. This all is driven by competing companies trying to make a profit.

Air bags were 'installed before they were required' because auto manufactures in the US were given a 7 year period to add them, not out of competition based on safety. This only after a decade of the auto industry fighting to keep those safety features from being required, exactly because the auto makers were worried about profits and not consumer safety.

"A Federal agency today abandoned the longdisputed requirement that automobile manufacturers install automatic crash protection, such as airbags or ''passive'' safety belts.

The action by the agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drew immediate protest from safety groups and praise from the automobile industry."

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/24/us/airbag-regulation-on-c...

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#343
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's called Data Protection Officer and you only need to appoint one if processing personal data is your core business, which is reasonable. Not commenting on the validity of this statement but it's interesting how I can tell from which continent you are from just by you saying that the regulation forcing a business to hire DPO is reasonable.

Yes, I'm from Europe, and it's my opinion that the GDPR is very necessary and mostly reasonable. I say that even though it caused me a lot of work for the past months. The requirement to hire a DPO is not a new thing, by the way - many countries in the EU already required this. This is true for many provisions in the GDPR - in Germany, for example, very little changes from the way it used to be, their data protection…

>The requirement to hire a DPO is not a new thing, by the way - many countries in the EU already required this. This is true for many provisions in the GDPR - in Germany, for example, very little changes from the way it used to be, their data protection law was strict to begin with.

Good for those countries? I'm not going to be happy with the idea of hiring some idiot to sit around and do nothing all day.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#344
post #261
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it in your TOS that European users are forbidden from using your site, and then if they complain to a data authority press charges under the CFAA, and sue them for damages you incurred due to their violation. Then let the courts hash it out.

Such TOS would most likely be 'unduely onerous' or whatever the local term for this concept is in other EU jurisdictions. I've said this many times here already, but law is not a closed rule based decision tree. Intent matters, and laws are written in a way that they can be interpreted so that their meaning can be adapted to new circumstances or different times. Now, I'm not going to argue about whether that's how it…

Unduly onerous to say you're not allowed to access the site if you're in the EU?

So the EU regulators can say my TOS have to allow EU citizens to access my site and my site must follow the GDPR.

That seems unlikely, and the fact that there's so much ambiguity around this is why so many websites are opting to block the EU rather than dealing with it.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VW haven't even been fined for cheating on their emissions test. Exec has been fined and sentenced to 7 years[0] VW have been fined $2.8B[1] [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/judge-sentences-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-larges...

By the US and 2.8B is a fraction of what they deserved to be fined. All VW execs should be in prison for the rest of their lives for what they have done.

Is that a bigger offence than „losing over 1400 migrant children” under an official governmental US programme, „some returned to child traffickers”? https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018...

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest hypothetical question... my file hosting website is in New Zealand, my servers are in New Zealand. Why would I care about US laws? Asking for a friend.

Because the US will strong-arm the NZ govt into arresting you for piracy.

I think you mean that the NZ and US have both signed on to treaties governing copyrights.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works both ways.

You are correct. That's what makes visiting another country/region fun for many people. They like to explore and encounter things they don't have available to them where they live. Otherwise, why leave home?

Decide if you talk about not giving a flying toss doing business or visiting for fun and leisure.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulations tend to favor incumbents, decreasing competition Except in Europe where it has done the exact opposite for telecom, especially compared to the unregulated US.

> telecom > unregulated US On the contrary, telecoms are very much regulated in the US. There is an entire commission for regulating radio/television/cable communications: the FCC. I could hardly choose a more regulated industry than telecommunications.

The US has a problem of private industry infiltrating and co-opting government, and people largely normalizing it. The landscape for telecoms is simultaneously over-regulated with respect to allowing room for new players to enter the market, and under-regulated with respect to consumer rights. US regulations favor monopolies, and monopolies abuse their influence on regulatory boards to shut out new competition.

Regulation can mean different things to different people. It's just stupid, one-dimensional, shallow thought to try to paint all regulation with a broad good-vs-bad brush.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents. I think by going to cars to prove your point proves how ridiculous regulation for websites are. For some reason there exists a group of people that believe that websites like facebook need regulations that are as…

My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies. The fact you think GDPR only applies to websites rather than the huge clusterfuck of personal data loss means you haven't understood the reason behind GDPR. Equifax…

> My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies.

You present a false dichotomy here. As much as the GP is wrong for boldly asserting the negative as fact, you are wrong for just as boldly asserting the opposite, without allowing for the panoply of options that inevitably arise from the point a regulation is conceived to the point that it is enacted. During the process of drafting the legislation, at least here in America, the existing players have a voice on the legislation's course, and the larger the existing player is, the louder their voice gets to be.

Re: GDPR: US news sites unavailable to EU users over data protection rules

#350

Honest hypothetical question... my website is in the US, my servers in the US, why would I care about the GDPR?

Look at it this way: "my website is in the EU, my servers are in the EU, why would I care about DMCA?" The truth is that if a company had a way to discriminate their EU users without any possibility of failure they could only apply these things to them but that approach has proven to not be cost effective.

You do realize there's a difference between a law and a treaty and there are international treaties governing copyrights, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treati...

Post reply on HN