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

Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 447 posts

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#301

Post by pavel_lishin »

throwno wrote: post #298
martin_a wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only need those pop-ups if you are using cookies which are not "technical cookies". If you are using tracking technology based on cookies or anything that collects information specific to a user, you will need to show the cookie banner and give an opt-in. Otherwise tracking/analytics is not allowed. So... Every site you see this banner on has some dead bodies in their cellar and wants you to move on and not take…

If I don't want cookies, "technical" or otherwise, I'll browse incognito mode or block them by some other means. I don't need a European bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

If I don't want trichinosis, "medical" or otherwise, I'll just cook my pork extra well or remove parasites by some other means. I don't need a USDA bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#302

Post by Hermel »

tjoff wrote: post #296
Hermel wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.

Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.

It’s certainly much cheaper to simply block European users than to pay a lawyer to tell you what you need to change and then pay a programmer to implement these changes.

Blocking the few European users is probably the right decision from an economic perspective.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#303

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

DontTellAnyone wrote: post #286
beachy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you believe is most inconvenient about GDPR compliance?

The thousands of Euros spent on lawyers and development time to become compliant, plus all the time wasted. Really a great accomplishment by the EU... in addition to clicking a shitty "I accept cookies" banner on every damn website I visit, I now frequently also have to click another popup for GDPR and multiple checkboxes for GDPR when I signup somewhere. As if anyone ever bothered reading those. As far as I'm concer…

As far as I'm concerned the GDPR is great regulation that puts people before corporations.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#304

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

deith wrote: post #282
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every website wants to track you. Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many websites disre…

>You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track your users So they are mandatory, since all websites NEED advertising revenue and analytics to function.

analytics are fine as long as you use GDPR compliant anonymision of the users data. But it’s easier to just ask permission.

You can also run ad’s asking as you are not using targeted ad (which you are allowed to use if you ask for permission)

There are invasive ways of asking for such permission. Sites that do full take overs of the site or persistent bars that follow you around are just trying to annoy the user into clicking agree.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#305

Post by unknown_library »

tjoff wrote: post #296
Hermel wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.

Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.

GDPR adds a lot of regulatory red tape to things that were previously simple. It is not only for nefarious reasons that you might want to avoid GDPR.

Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs. Want to use a third-party service? Now you need to make sure that you are using their GDPR-compliant plan, and that you are using their Amsterdam endpoints. Maybe you need to renegotiate your contract with them.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#306

Post by throwno »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #301
throwno wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I don't want cookies, "technical" or otherwise, I'll browse incognito mode or block them by some other means. I don't need a European bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

If I don't want trichinosis, "medical" or otherwise, I'll just cook my pork extra well or remove parasites by some other means. I don't need a USDA bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

Yeah, the Chicago Tribune putting cookies in your browser is just like distributing tainted meat. Got it.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#307

Post by stiray »

globuous wrote: post #236
stiray wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, lets look in context. In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal, sponsored by state. Should we talk about anti-gay laws? One day it is fine, second day you can get prisoned. No one should keep such records as society is changing and not always to best. This is one of the reasons, privacy is one of fundamenta…

Maybe, do you have a source you could share please ? I often read this argument around but have not verified it. I've also heard some records produced under Napoleon were used. But this was a real crazy time. Hypothetical scenario (in the sense that I have not verified it, but I do think it's a very likely scenario to have happened): There were medical records of people with physical conditions before 1933 (so they c…

Just for the last part, for everything else you can use duckduckgo (or qwant).

Anyway it is not such a hypotetical scenario, nazis were really killing the disabled persons based on their medical record (yes, qwant or duckduckgo for it).

Yes, it is a bad idea that doctors keep those data. If insurance companies get those information (and my dentist said he was already aproached by some company to sell dental records, I wouldnt be surprised if this is a common practice in states) you will have issues. Same with employees etc., even if nothing wrong with your health but there is x% chance that you get terminal disease.

Those records should be handed over to the patient, tamper proofed (no, not blockchain, just RSA will do fine) or stored, but encrypted with patient key. Actually when writting this I remembered that we (as in my country) are having a medical smart card that needs to be given to the doctor to access our medical records. Maybe we already have such a system.

Anyway it is a bit sick comparing google with doctors. The need and trust is on completely different scale not to mention that trust between doctor and patient is handled by laws and hippocratic oath since 257 AD.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#308

Post by asutekku »

unknown_library wrote: post #305
tjoff wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.

GDPR adds a lot of regulatory red tape to things that were previously simple. It is not only for nefarious reasons that you might want to avoid GDPR. Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs. Want to use a third-party service? Now you need to make sure that you are using their GDPR-compliant plan, and that you are using their Amsterdam endpoints. Ma…

I mean you shouldn’t store any personal information in the logs to begin with.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#309

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #261
ossworkerrights wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s 2020 and the EU still thinks more bureaucracy is the way to go. I am not entirely sure US websites should necessary spend more to accommodate GDPR, which itself should be revised and made less inconvenient.

Unless I remember it incorrectly, GDPR doesn't even apply to websites that don't target EU citizens; so it really doesn't affect US websites that are clearly aimed primarily at the USA, just because some EU citizen might use it as well. And if a foreign website wants to expand into the european market, then yes, no matter its country of origin, it will have to follow EU rules. So, in conclusion, geoblocking the EU is…

It’s a bit more complex than that. Are they doing business at all in the EU (for a news site, do they have correspondents in the EU?) are they selling extras to the EU (can you pay for no ads, can you buy and they will ship merch to the EU?).

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#310

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

gmueckl wrote: post #284
martin_a wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only need those pop-ups if you are using cookies which are not "technical cookies". If you are using tracking technology based on cookies or anything that collects information specific to a user, you will need to show the cookie banner and give an opt-in. Otherwise tracking/analytics is not allowed. So... Every site you see this banner on has some dead bodies in their cellar and wants you to move on and not take…

This is technically correct from a legal point of view. But it's a different story when Google threatens to delist your website for a missing cookie popup.

Sooo... the american megacorporation is a bigger problem than the european buerocrats? Who would have guessed (That's a rethoric question; I would have guessed, as well as most people from outside the USA)
Post reply on HN