Google’s GDPR Workaround

Post by pvg » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 7:49 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #214

philwelch wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company I've worked at has had an explicit policy of not commenting on that company's business on the internet.

There are regular comments by declared employees of quite a few companies including Google on HN. The commenting and vote/flag brigadeering around subjects that center on one of these companies is such that many subjects are either voted off the homepage entirely or the participants in the thread get downvoted/upvoted to better support the company position or narrative. This is all quite in the open.

Post by gmueckl » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #573

gmueckl wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misreading the GDPR badly. A data controller can only pass on PII to a data processor. That is, any entity receiving PII from a data comtroller automatically is assigned this role by law. There are no alternative roles that could assumed instead. This means that a data processor must obey the rules laid out for it by the GDPR or it is in violation.

Oh, okay, I believe I understand your point and understand the misunderstanding. My point is that you can't just make everybody a data processor by signing a contract, share PII with them and be compliant (i.e. hospital sharing data with insurance companies). You're saying that by sharing PII with them, you're making them a data processor, but that says nothing about whether the DC or the DP are compliant.

Post by gregknicholson » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 8:37 AM UTC

eitland wrote: post #348

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to give consent for each individual third party your data gets shared with? I’d thought that if you give consent for some purpose, the company can use whatever processors it wants as long as it ensures they protect your privacy.

Yep, thats what those ridiculous pop up boxes with 400 (I counted one) "carefully select partners" of the websitd you visit are supposed to be. It is IMO just a mockery of the intent of the law and I wonder when this will be punished. I personally think GDPR might be a bit strict, but adtech have practically been begging for this for years so acting surprised now doesn't cut it.

Post by anoncake » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 8:45 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #562

CodeMage wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much a false dichotomy: a site must either support itself via ads, or cease to exist. There are other ways to get money to support your work, and if those ways are too painful right now, that's just an opportunity for disruption. Even better, it's an opportunity to prove that disruption doesn't have to be exploitative.

There are entire markets that cannot be accessed by publishers unless they subsidize content with ads. That is not a false dichotomy, that is a market requirement. Not every website is the WSJ or Bloomberg, which cater to markets that are willing to pay for content.

Post by DrScientist » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

lol768 wrote: post #333

ChoGGi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be 'an open ecosystem for privacy-preserving, AI-first computing'?

Legitimately a meaningless description. I find it very odd the README and repository description are completely devoid of any meaingful information.