351–360 of 680 posts
They claim that everyone had a lot of time, but what about the 1-3 person startup that’s been around for 4-5 years who is just getting by and didn’t have the resources to re-engineer their entire application or to write up a complex privacy policy or hire an EU Representative (Yes, apparently that is required as well). If the EU does clamp down on forced consent I think the long tail of small startups and publication…
Do you have examples of startups where data is not a core business concern, who still find it very onerous to comply with GDPR (and why it is so difficult)?
I'm sorry to come off as unsympathetic, but I feel I've seen a lot of complaints about GDPR, as though the impact on their business is accidental or a side-effect, coupled with apparent denial or inability to understand that their business practices are exactly the problem that GDPR intends to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By hosting non-tracking ads. Like they used to be before Google started this whole profiling menace.
They can even be dynamic. Filter on location, uplink/computer speed, screen size, browser etc. None of it requires storing data. Adtech might move to correlating all these things + the website visited to target particular demographics.
ie: figure out why they are doing what they're doing and direct them to ads that capture that intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hire an EU Representative It's called Data Protection Officer and you only need to appoint one if processing personal data is your core business, which is reasonable. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da... And yes, I expect the EU to enforce the consent rules. It's very central to the GDPR.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how can be a business sustainable in this way?
You can still have ads under GDPR. You can even continue to track people, you just have to ask consent and not doing it behind user’s back.
The response to GDPR is interesting. If they are handling and selling your data in ways that are not compatible with GDPR, then you should seriously consider using someone else for that information.
> If they are handling and selling your data in ways that are not compatible with GDPR Very few businesses actually sell data the way you are imagining and if all GDPR did was ban that business model I would be happy with the existence of GDPR. GDPR is much more than that and this insinuation that every business that doesn't want to deal with this hassle is somehow evil and selling ultra detailed profiles on you to t…
I have a profitable, bootstrapped SaaS business. It's not based on ads or selling data. I don't even have a freemium plan. Only a limited free trial after which you have to start paying. It's a trivial application that stores mostly already public data. Only email is required to login so that I can send password reset and other such communication.
I've been talking to a very well known giant corporation for months. The VP and director love my product and want to start using it right away for their department. But their legal team is scared shitless with 4% fines in GDPR. They are putting some draconian clauses, (various ISO certifications and such) in the contract that I, as a small company, cannot comply. That's their interpretation of GDPR. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong.
The VP and Director are really nice people and I've developed very good rapport with them. But I'm afraid their patience will run out soon and they'll go back to using spreadsheets. A lose-lose situation.
This is the side-effect of GDPR.
I'm all up for GDPR. I have uBlock, have blackholed all Facebook domains, etc. But don't assume that GDPR doesn't affect normal business transactions. Anyone who says, "Oh, how hard could it be?" has no idea what they are talking about.
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.
Selling used cars? Generally, as long as the car is sold as originally equipped, there's no issues. I can sell or drive a 1970s era car without having to add modern emissions equipment, bumpers, and airbags for example. At least I can where I live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how can be a business sustainable in this way?
Hopefully what will happen is that it will be more expensive to advertise and publishers will earn more on dumber ads Obviously if ads are less targeted then they may be less effective so advertisers will make less on ads that cost more. This will hurt their bottom line, which in turn will make the products we buy more expensive. But that's exactly the end goal. I want to pay for things (information, products) with m…
I'm sure you considered all the poor people across the world that are subsidized by the ad driven model we use today. What we truly need on the internet is data gated behind pay walls to protect important information such as which facebook groups you clicked like on.
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…
So shouldn't the website's intent to block you from accessing it matter?