Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#231

Post by dleslie » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

teamspirit wrote: post #187

I think the HN community, and most consumers, tend to look at things from only one angle. Imagine you start work at some small shop that manufacturers widgets for consumers. What would you do when you have to advertise your product? You'd have to turn to Google is a similar company. Are there any real alternatives? (I am asking because I really want to know) I say this because I am in this position now. I have to fig…

For actual, physical widgets the traditional advertising markets still work: trade magazines and trade shows. Contacting vendors who specialize in your market of interest and running promotions with them also works.

However, it's all a whole lot more expensive and effortful than running some Google ads.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#232

Post by fmajid » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

ht_th wrote: post #65

ceejayoz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they're able to beat Google's lawyer army and actually prosecute them, then Google will take a whopping fine in the millions of dollars that'll be more than covered by their daily revs. This is why the 4% of global annual revenue fine option exists. A few of those add up quick.

Furthermore, if organizations are explicitly accepting penalties to keep on violating the law, that law will be adjusted accordingly. It might take a while, but it will happen. Laws with the intention to change behavior / culture cannot "work" from day one. This is a continuous process steered by politics, courts, governments, and public opinion.

Penalties can be applied repeatedly if the violation continues. It's not a 4% lifetime cap, it's 4% per enforcement action. The DPA can just churn them once a week and then we're at 204% of annual turnover.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#233

Post by bhaavan » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

sam1r wrote: post #32

Just learned about Brave for the first time. Pretty neat stuff.

The whole intention of this clickbait article by Brave, without any technical details, is to sell it's browser.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#234

Post by rpastuszak » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #211

la_barba wrote: post #206

Is there any way to improve the matching of ads to the viewer without violating their privacy?

The matching is in itself a violation of privacy, at least if you interpret the right of privacy as "The right to be left alone", as former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it.

I think that’s incorrect, relevant ads could be displayed based purely on the site content, without user info attached to ad calls. We’ve been there.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#235

Post by throwaway_law » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

Its actually even worse factually...its not just the coffee was hot and McD's had prior complaints, there are industry standards, which McDonald's knowingly and willfully violated.

It actually all relates to trucking/truckers who use their own special cups, but demand the coffee be scalding so it stays hot longer on the road. McDonald's catered to these truckers to grow their coffee business, they knew the risks and gave no warnings to customers. I think the employee was also negligent in securing the lid leading to the spill itself.

As you say the coffee was so hot it scalded this woman so badly through her jeans she needed skin grafts. And sure enough there was massive money spent to spin this in the media as "woman burned by coffee sues for millions, everything wrong with our litigious society." Where this should have read: giant corporation disregards safety standards to boost their bottom line to the detriment of its customers leading to boiling coffee that scalded a woman's privates requiring skin grafts, then in bad faith the insurer denies the woman's claim to pay her medical bills, drags her through court which they lose, then they drag her through the appeals process which she didn't want any part of either.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#236

Post by la_barba » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #211

la_barba wrote: post #206

Is there any way to improve the matching of ads to the viewer without violating their privacy?

The matching is in itself a violation of privacy, at least if you interpret the right of privacy as "The right to be left alone", as former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it.

Yes, thats what I was thinking too. For Google, being in the ad business itself necessitates that Google's trajectory will be on shaky ground w.r.t privacy.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#237

Post by tzs » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

paul7986 wrote: post #152

Aunche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketing expert, but I doubt that the best way Google can think of to sway public opinion is to call people privacy nuts. Google employs over 100,000 people and even more people work at similar companies like Facebook or buy targeted ads. Many of these people browse Hackernews and get offended if others accuse their livelihoods of being evil.

I can attest to that as when you point of things like Google gets caught stealing IP from a MIT student they invited for an interview (a popular thread here on HN) it gets downvoted voraciously. Either its employees, hired guns and or something...

I saw that happen to you when you pointed that out in the big Anthony Levandowski discussion a week ago--but I think a lot of that had to do with you posting essentially the same comment at three different places in the same thread. I don't think it started getting downvoted until then.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#238

Post by joelx » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:04 PM UTC

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

Nation states employ shills to attack other countries best companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. There has been a sustained PR campaign against our companies.

Dictatorships use Whataboutism to help cover stuff like this... https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/cz75gj/hong_kong_poli...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#239

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

calcifer wrote: post #193

dsr_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian's popcon is really irritating because Debian actually uses it as a source of evidence... systematically eliminating those of us who keep it off for privacy/security reasons.

Let me get this straight. You have an opt-in way of telling them what you use, which you don't use and then get upset because your use isn't considered? What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house? Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions.

> What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house?

Not use data from a mechanism that's controversial with some of the user base to drive decisions? Reach out and ask people, instead of asking their machines?

> Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions.

Sound decision making requires some kind of metrics and also sound reasoning. It doesn't mean that metrics have to be widely-deployed telemetry. There are alternatives, like doing studies "the old way". Moreover, it can be argued that a lot of problems on today's Internet stem from people vacuuming up whatever data they can find and divining decisions out of it. It's not how you do science.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#240

Post by luckylion » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

gmueckl wrote: post #166

luckylion wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the GDPR-default though. You're still allowed to give data to third parties, you just need to have contracts with them regarding the handling, deletion etc of that data. Of course, mostly that's for data processors, which I don't think ad networks working with Google would fall under.

No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement. An ad network that receives personal data is definitely a data processor.

> No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement.

I'm relatively sure that there's another part: it's data processing for the client (here: Google) and the data cannot be used for other purposes. In this case, they don't process data for Google, they process it in cooperation with Google for the ad-buyers. Google also doesn't name them as data processors (which it would have to if that were their relationship).

If some contract was all it took, what would stop hospitals from selling patient info to insurance companies, saying "hey, they are processing the data, and we have a business agreement, this is all fine".