EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter • Hacker News Board

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#221

Post by hannasanarion » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

q12we34rt5 wrote: post #105

Superleroy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost had to laugh after the US just recently abolished Net Neutrality. And what is the grind with cookie notices and GDPR? I very much like to know what companies can do with my data, what data they have and demand deletion of it. This is not against companies, it's for people. Companies should have had these information in the first place, now they just need to display it to the user but I guess thats too much t…

>I almost had to laugh after the US just recently abolished Net Neutrality Your laughter is misplaced. America didn't have net neutrality up until fairly recently and before it was enacted, the internet worked just fine. It'll work just fine now. And if it really matters that much to you that you feel some kind of emotional release from your own worries, just know that many states are already putting laws on the book…

>America didn't have net neutrality up until fairly recently and before it was enacted, the internet worked just fine.

Yes, America did have Net Neutrality. Net neutrality was the norm for the entire history of the internet, and it was formalized in law in 2009 after Comcast started blocking torrent traffic in the late 00s and people asked the FCC to do something about it.

The net neutrality kerfuffle in 2014 was due to a court decision overturning the earlier law (based on the logic that "net neutrality" and "common carrier" are similar enough that it's unfair for them to be different categories".

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#222

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:49 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #150

quanticle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest irony is EU regulators whining about the dominance of Google, Facebook, etc, while passing regulations like this which make it impossible for anyone to compete with their ilk. Google and Facebook will have no trouble building the automated filters that are mandated by this legislation. The impact of this will be felt entirely by smaller companies with either will shut down, or, more likely, will never be…

Despite best efforts, there's just no way around the general notion that affecting the tide affects all boats. You take the bad with the good of an internet with fewer restrictions, or you add both bad and good for everyone with restrictions. Even attempts to target legislation tend to have an unquantifiable ripple effect beyond the foresight of naive legislators.

> You take the bad with the good of an internet with fewer restrictions, or you add both bad and good for everyone with restrictions.

One could try enacting clear restrictions that do not require a team of lawyers to divine a meaning, and one of lobbyists to make sure the meaning is correct. You can write regulations that take intention and unlawful gains into account. And, finally, you can get somebody that understands the subject to tell you what can actually be done and what is sci-fi.

But it seems that lawmakers worldwide consider themselves above that kind of concern.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#223

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #175

andybak wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that getting the region wrong is sloppy. But how does one avoid asking every time when cookies are blocked? What other implementation option is possible? This is what cookies are for .

Cookies don't matter. Personally identifiable information matters. Storing a "seen_cookie_notice=true" flag is fine (assuming the banner itself indicates that interacting with it will set the flag) as long as you don't use it for anything else.

The GP does not store cookies. How will the site store the seen_cookie_notice?

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#224

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #19

madhadron wrote: post #8

Another possibility: the EU is serious and wants the content farm to show ads business model to die.

Ads have nothing to do with this. It's not aimed at business models that show ads, it's aimed at business models that host user content. The whole point is to put content exclusivity back in the hands of traditional publishers.

Well, traditional publishers that have a complete hosting infrastructure.

How does it apply to ISPs by the way?

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#225

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #117

ttoinou wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an electric car, so no oil consumption (parent talks bout mpg)

There is an mpg equivalent for electric cars based on the idea that 1 US gallon of petrol is 33.7 kWh.

That's 70% of the entire energy contents of the gasoline. You don't get anywhere near that kind of efficiency even on large electrical generators. 16.2 kWh is way more realistic.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#226

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

sacado2 wrote: post #131

qwerty456127 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is GDPR a problem at all? Is it so hard to avoid personalized tracking of unregistered users, ask users for their consent at sign-up time and implement a button for them to export and delete their data?

Avoiding personalized tracking of unregistered users means you can't use Google Analytics or something equivalent. Not that it's impossible per se, but these tools have a strong added value, so...

I'm not a fan of GDPR, but no, it doesn't mean that. It only means that GA can't be used in a way that allows you to correlate the data back to a particular individual. You can still use it in aggregate, and you can even follow individual threads through the system; you just can't know who the user was.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#227

Post by beyondkaoru » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

Sir_Substance wrote: post #152

XCabbage wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm assuming that "my" in this sentence means a business, since individuals are not subject to GDPR No; tokyodude is asking what happens if you request that (for example) Google erases your data, and he has your email address in his Gmail contacts. Does Google, as the data controller who ultimately stores tokyodude's contact list for him, then have to purge your email address from tokyodude's address book? > Listen…

>No; tokyodude is asking what happens if you request that (for example) Google erases your data, and he has your email address in his Gmail contacts. Oh, well in that case this is explicitly handled in recital 18. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/ > Point (b) seems to suggest that it applies by default if the basis for originally processing the data was the subject's consent... but that the controller can override…

> Oh, well in that case this is explicitly handled in recital 18. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/

I disagree. One's GMail contacts is a clear (ha) example of a fuzzy scenario that I think is ... questionably handled by the language at the link you reference. It's difficult especially because it's a weird hybrid of a very personal or household activity that runs inside a commercial activity.

From the text:

> 1 This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity

Ok!

> and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.

...wait, GMail is clearly a professional or commercial product. An online addressbook in GMail... does that count as having a "connection" or not? My purpose of the addresses is personal. But it's clearly connected (at least by tcp, haha) to a commercial activity.

> 2 Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities.

Ok ... wait, social networking clearly involves commercial entities (e.g. twitter). So my personal actions for personal non-business uses of twitter are not regulated. Fine. But twitter itself is?

> 3 However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.

Ok so the regulation applies to the controllers/processors (e.g. GMail, twitter).

So: the regulation does not "apply" to me for my personal use, but my (personally defined for personal use) GMail contacts could get deleted by the other person?

I am definitely not a lawyer, but this does seem at least somewhat contradictory, or at least would benefit greatly from a few more clarifying sentences.

Comparison to complex documentation is not apt to your pro-condescension argument. Complex and vague can be very different.

Documentation can be complex, but if it's rigorous and not vague, I am totally fine with that. Software can be very complex. When it is complex, I would hope the documentation has sufficient detail to cover their intricacies. I'm glad that the postgres documentation is huge and complex -- it has to be.

I do however complain pretty often about vague documentation haha. I feel like it's pretty common for people to complain about an under-documented quirk shooting them in the foot (e.g. mongodb and durability back in the day).

One last thing: If your interpretation is right (and it seems plausible, maybe even likely), then I really need to locally archive my emails and contacts more often haha.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#228

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

qwerty456127 wrote: post #31

anonytrary wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the unspoken rule to just ignore GDPR until you're big enough and EU starts bitching at you, at which point you just pay them off and spend some resources on compliance?

How is GDPR a problem at all? Is it so hard to avoid personalized tracking of unregistered users, ask users for their consent at sign-up time and implement a button for them to export and delete their data?

Is it so hard to ... implement a button for them to export and delete their data?

Yes, it is. Although we're constantly updating the code, my team's responsible for a web site for which the data model is nearly a decade old. And the overall business process that it feeds is about 25 years old. We don't know everywhere that the user's data goes in order to export it. Building the support to do so is pretty big. And being able to expunge their data on request is huge, given that data models were constructed without thought to a requirement that the user data be purgeable. It turns out that the requirement isn't quite that broad, but then the legal advice to help determine where it does need to be done isn't cheap.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#229

Post by greggyb » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

tastroder wrote: post #100

greggyb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sort of freedom referred to has nothing to do with a zero-price. It has to do with the ability of two consenting adults (or we can say "willing parties" if you want) to enter into a transaction to exchange goods or services, or proxies (like dollars). The opposite of such a freedom is not that one party chooses to charge for some of its services, but that one party is prevented from offering such a service.

You mean like... Netflix being prevented from streaming through your ISP (the only one available in your area mind) because Google paid it more to prefer YouTube traffic? The things Americans will frame as freedom of choice will continue to baffle me I guess.

Sure, I'll bite.

Is Netflix "prevented" or "not preferred". Let's pick our battle before we fight it.

But there is some useful grounding here. I use the term consenting adults, but perhaps we should refer to "legal entities". I think it is fair to start from a place where legal entities are allowed to enter into agreements with one another.

You are a legal entity. I am a legal entity. Netflix is a legal entity. Google is a legal entity. EI is a legal entity. (I have given the hypothetical ISP in your post a name, Evil ISP.)

There's my starting point. Would you like to continue a discussion about this? Please feel free to let me know if you disagree with anything above, and we can start there.

Re: EU Copyright: Block Everything, Never Make Mistakes, but Don't Use Upload Filter

#230

Post by XCabbage » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

beyondkaoru wrote: post #227

Sir_Substance wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No; tokyodude is asking what happens if you request that (for example) Google erases your data, and he has your email address in his Gmail contacts. Oh, well in that case this is explicitly handled in recital 18. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/ > Point (b) seems to suggest that it applies by default if the basis for originally processing the data was the subject's consent... but that the controller can override…

> Oh, well in that case this is explicitly handled in recital 18. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/ I disagree. One's GMail contacts is a clear (ha) example of a fuzzy scenario that I think is ... questionably handled by the language at the link you reference. It's difficult especially because it's a weird hybrid of a very personal or household activity that runs inside a commercial activity. From the text: > 1 Th…

I think your interpretation is correct. In particular, I think that your first two quotes from the text are saying that the "personal or household" user themselves has no obligations under the GDPR. It's coherent to include social networking in here; without that clause, a child writing on Facebook about how another child smells bad would presumably themselves be a data controller and subject to an erasure request, whereas with the clause, Facebook can be compelled by a regulator to remove the post but the child who posted it cannot.

Or at least that's my interpretation. Like you, I remain uncertain and troubled.