Live data from Hacker News

Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

complianceweek.com

1–10 of 216 posts

Re: Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

#4
post #2

We care about your privacy notices have become the bane of my life.

Right up there with emails from software companies with “our response to Covid-19.”

You are a software company. Unless the server has the virus, I really don’t care.

Re: Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

#5
We value your privacy. Like, it's valuable. We sell it for money. We're going to nag you until you click this button so we can't get in trouble for profiting off the data you give us.

Good legislation is important to let us penalize bad actors—does any one know of any accounts of some bad actors getting stopped by the GDPR?

What do you guys think: are there laws that should be in place to incentivize privacy-preserving tools?

Re: Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

#6
I work as a developer in the European public sector, we already took privacy and security rather serious because the laws governing it had always been and are still tougher than the GDPR.

I actually like that the EU is doing something, and I guess this is the best you get from a bureaucracy, but what it’s changed is that we document everything. Whenever I build anything that moves privacy data, even if it’s just hooking up a new system to our ADFS which accesses employee names, I need to fill out 4 forms and write a risk assessment. It all goes somewhere I suppose, I’m not sure because once I file them I never hear anything about it unless my wording wasn’t good enough.

As far as security goes, it hasn’t actually changed anything. I guess it does if you weren’t taking security very serious before, but the idea that we as developers will think about security first or design better systems if a bunch of lawyers force us to fill out forms and write essays on what can go wrong... I just can’t wrap my head about why anyone would actually believe that stuff.

Like I said, it’s a great idea, on paper, but the bureaucracy that is enforcing it is just so clueless. Passing inspections is more about having the right answers and documentation than having actual security, so it’s no wonder that the outcome is full of mixed signals and weird enforcement.

Still better than nothing, in my opinion, and it’ll probably get better with time.

Re: Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

#8
I'm happy to see this as the top post on Hacker News, though would wonder if anyone would be able to provide me with a summary of the article since $399 is a bit steep for me (as in, I can afford it, but it's obviously WAY too much for what's promised by the title).

I'd also be interested in case anyone has any thoughts on what the short or long-term outcome of the situation would be. Come to think of it, I'd like it if someone could give me a rough outline of GDPR at all.

I'm a software developer working in Britain, and I reckon the local consequences are "the lawyers make lots of money", but am always keen to hear other viewpoints.

Re: Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement

#9
post #2

We care about your privacy notices have become the bane of my life.

The majority of these aren't actually compliant.

Tracking should be opt-in and consent should be freely given. If your notice is annoying enough that most people click accept (or if clicking decline is harder) then you are already in breach.

A lot of websites also consider analytics cookies as essential and don't provide a way to decline those which isn't compliant either.

These websites can be detected very easily by running a web scraper and looking for one of these non-compliant "consent management" solutions (looking at you TrustArc) and fining every single company that uses it.

Post reply on HN