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

Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 450 posts

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#351

Post by ThomPete »

Aengeuad wrote: post #323
ThomPete wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did they wouldn't have implemented GDRP as it was. The very fact that it might be removed in a horse-trade illustrates my point.

It would be insane to implement privacy and data regulations differently for smaller companies. You would end up with startups having free reign to abuse peoples privacy in order to gain market dominance against their larger competitors who don't have this advantage, and you'd have larger companies near the threshold arguing about and doing everything in their power to stay under their threshold so they can avoid doi…

No it wouldn't. Large companies can pay for a lot of things that small companies can't.

What is insane is putting in regulation in areas like this instead of just punishing people for mis-conduct.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#352

Post by ThomPete »

toyg wrote: post #289
ThomPete wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did they wouldn't have implemented GDRP as it was. The very fact that it might be removed in a horse-trade illustrates my point.

That's just politics. It would be exactly the same at the national level.

That doesn't make it better. As far as I am aware the US does have rules that distinguish like that.

Implementing regulations for every company as if they are the same is what is absurd here.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#353

Post by phissk »

c3o wrote: post #269
Y_Y wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PILATE: Hoo hoo hoo ho. The little wascal has spiwit. CENTURION: Has what, sir? PILATE: Spiwit. CENTURION: Yes. He did, sir. PILATE: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do. CENTURION: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir. PILATE: So, you dare to waid us. BRIAN: To what, sir? PILATE: Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly! slap

This would indeed seem to be a copyright infringement in many EU member states. For example, in Germany it wouldn't fall under the quotation exception (no such thing as vague "fair use" here), since you aren't critically engaging with or commenting on the quote, which would be allowed – you just reproduced it. The movie studio could now hold HN liable. Well, except that HN is not under EU jurisdiction, so it could pr…

Your post, right here, discussing quote, makes this fair use.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#354

Post by TeMPOraL »

SilasX wrote: post #343
TeMPOraL wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can buy arguments that extra compliance efforts make some businesses not cost-effective in Europe, but this particular argument is nonsense. It's like a factory that dumped toxic waste into a river complaining that, because of a ban on dumping toxic waste into rivers, they now "have to" dump them to nearby meadows instead, and that makes local customers unhappy. "Detrimental effect on user experience" is an intende…

No, it's more like prop 47: "Hey, you have to warn people if there are carcinogens inside. No penalty for false warnings." Every business: "Stuff in here causes cancer." Every customer: "Okay." GPDR: Every business: "Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience. That okay?" Every customer: "OK."

> Every business: "Hey, we use cookies to provide a better experience. That okay?"

They're not required to unless they're using cookies for something other than providing better experience. Also, that's cookie laws, not GDPR.

It's more like:

GDPR: "We see you doing X, Y and Z which are pretty abusive. We want you to not do X, Y and Z, but if you absolutely must, you can only do that to volunteers and you can't deny service to people who do not volunteer. Oh, and it really must be opt-in."

Every business: "Hey, we do X, Y and Z. That okay? [x] no >>> [ ] <<< !! YES PRETTY PLEASE".

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#355

Post by DCKing »

kodablah wrote: post #324
DCKing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think calling GDPR over-regulation is extremely suspect. The GDPR does a good job in codifying basic privacy principles of what you can do with personal data. Clear communication, consent, control over your own data and data protection principles. Things that should be self-evident but we have been failing with forever, and something that has become an extremely widespread widespread in an online society. The only…

> I think calling GDPR over-regulation is extremely suspect. I don't. I find it an egregious example of over-regulation. I think not recognizing the obviously large scope of such regulation is extremely suspect. > The GDPR does a good job in codifying basic privacy principles of what you can do with personal data By what measure do you define "good job"? > The only reason to call it over regulation is if you're spoil…

I'd like to point out that you're responding to me as if you assume I have no to little experience with this law and its consequences for organizations. That's not a reasonable assumption - my post is speaking from organizational experience. You're not talking to some outsider of all of this.

If you have specific problems with GDPR or that it goes too far, I'd like to know what those specific aspects are. In my view, there's some basic rules on how to deal with personal data that the GDPR codifies, and it does that surprisingly (for the EU) reasonably. It starts from simple principles of citizen rights and ethical behaviour and writes a complete rulebook on how to apply them - that's my definition of a good job.

It might be difficult for business to adapt to actually now considering processing personal data a risk. But that by itself does not make GDPR "overregulation" - that just makes it a difficult regulation change to process. I won't shed a tear about business having a difficult time going through that process - I'm incredibly happy that they are forced to consider processing personal data a risk, because it is.

Also note I specifically said "Websites that don't want to comply with GDPR" - not "Companies that are not sure they can comply with GDPR yet". There's a reasonable difference, I agree. But, yes, if you find that your business intrinsically cannot comply with GDPR or you don't want to - it's time to take a good hard look in the mirror.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#356

Post by JumpCrisscross »

foepys wrote: post #345
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended Romania has already deployed GDPR as a weapon against its press [1]. I also have a short list of anecdotes of economic activity (start-ups and other new market entrants) that would have happened in the EU but, in large part due to compliance costs–including GDPR–wound up happening outside the EU. [1] https://euobserver.com/justice/14335…

And the EU is trying to prevent Romania from doing it. I don't see your point. Romania could just have used another law or just made a new one to harass the press.

> the EU is trying to prevent Romania from doing it

Giving people in power broad discretion with the law and then counting on them being nice is a delicate strategy. It counts on every administration being benevolent.

> Romania could just have used another law or just made a new one to harass the press

There is a big difference between using the authority of the EU, through an EU regulation, and passing a domestic law to go after people you don't like.

More broadly, this argument can be made against any over-reaching law. Just because some hypothetical law could be bad doesn't make an ambiguous law granting widespread power to select bureaucrats okay.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#357

Post by TeMPOraL »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #342
TeMPOraL wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-blocking instead of making one's business model compliant with the law is a choice . An alternative would be to update the business model. That's all there is to it. GDPR isn't banning news sites, or other companies; it's banning a very particular set of antisocial business practices.

You’re muddying the waters. Just because someone doesn’t want to take on the compliance burden does not mean they have an antisocial business practice. What you’re saying does not logically follow.

It does, you just made an illogical connection. I didn't say that companies who self-block must necessarily have antisocial business practices. I only said that GDPR is banning those practices. I also said that companies have a choice between removing themselves from European market or adjusting their business model to be compliant.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#358

Post by briandear »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #335

The EU is going to regulate themeselves to the dark ages by simply creating an environment that is too antagonistic and costly to capitalism compared to other parts of the world. The regulations around capital raising for a fund in the EU is aweful. You’re better off being based in the US and simply invest in EU startups.

[flagged]

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#359

Post by nokcha »

Nasrudith wrote: post #248
presscast wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is 'meant' is irrelevant. Important is the letter of the law. Hold on, that's not true. The intent of law matters and is codified in various ways, including stating the intent of the law directly in its text. This in turn informs judges (including appellate judges!) of how to evaluate a specific case. In jurisprudential systems, this in turn becomes case-law which further cements the intent of the law as a bind…

Or they are exceedingly cynical about the arbiters and paranoid about abuses - not a bad tradition when defending rights. Intents may be pretenses which are cheap and mean nothing. The USSR was "for the people" and killed record ammounts of them. Even if ungrounded in displayed maliciousness a "how will this be abused" mindset is its own tradition and I argue a good thing when considering and writing laws. Since writ…

>you are clinically paranoid if you think your compiler will try to twist your code in its favor

C compilers have been known to "optimize" code with undefined behavior in such a way as to introduce a security vulnerability that would not exist in the most direct translation of the C code to machine code.

Re: Article 13 is almost finished and will change the internet as we know it

#360

Post by pavpanchekha »

sokoloff wrote: post #263
GuB-42 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, it is. The directive applies to Hacker News. And it will certainly be in trouble people decided to use it to post an entire Harry Potter novel and it becomes the go-to place to read it. But Hacker News has moderators, and in practice, these posts are aren't likely to stay long, therefore fulfilling Article 13 obligations. I'm pretty sure that movie quotes are not copyright-protected. And the last point in the ar…

Why would movie quotes not be copyright-protected? They are almost certainly copyright protected, with copyright law provisions granted for certain fair use purposes.

Keep in mind that "fair use" is an American doctrine, not built into international copyright treaties and often defined administratively (not legislatively) in other countries. And we are discussing copyright law in Europe. Europe uses several itemized exceptions to copyright; a movie quote could fall under 5.3i "incidental inclusion" or 5.3k "pastiche", or in some contexts 5.3d "criticism and review", but there's no overall doctrine that "reasonable uses" are allowed.
Post reply on HN