Two years in, GDPR defined by mixed signals, unbalanced enforcement • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by Mirioron » Sat, May 30, 2020, 8:03 PM UTC

Fargren wrote: post #193

Mirioron wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A business model that fails because you explicitly make them illegal isn't exactly a failed business model. The lawmakers made them fail and they either knew it was going to happen or were incompetent.

A goal of the GDPR was to make these business models illegal, because they are considered bad. It has not been successfull at this, mostly due to lack of enforcement.

Or maybe that's what the voters are told. Why do so many people suddenly believe politicians? Do you think European politicians don't constantly lie through their teeth?

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

#212

Post by asldfhasdf2 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #159

volak wrote: post #24

I would pay a subscription to a news site if they spent all their time evaluating 2-5 year old events and determining which side was right. 2 years ago comments of "this will only benefit the lawyers" would be -50 points. Turns out... actually yeah.

Reminds me when the EU "Fixed" Cookies and now we have these stupid click-through warnings everywhere that have pretty much ruined the user experience. Root cause: people passing laws they have idea what about.

hate to say that but "check your privilege".

You know what cookies are and made your informed decision to accept them in your browsers. I do not, for example, and block most of them.

99% of internet users do not had that knowledge before those "stupid click-through warnings everywhere".

So if you want to write off the outcome of the EU cookie law, it is not "entitled Californian software engineers got a little annoyed", but instead "the whole world woke up to the fact advertising companies are tracking everything they do online via cookies".

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

#213

Post by smichel17 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #138

smichel17 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but…

The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because the…

> The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant

This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention:

> why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree?

Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cannot be signed away. For example, it's usually illegal to sell yourself into slavery. In the GDPR's view, privacy is such a right.

Do you think the government should not be able to stop these transactions at all, or do you think privacy should not fall into that category? Or a different objection I haven't thought of.

---

I have my own views, but I'm not really interested in arguing them. It largely comes down to what moral system you subscribe to, which I think is a waste of time to discuss on HN (or any public forum) -- there's too many people on the internet to argue with everyone you disagree with; better to learn to get along, and focus advocacy on communities closer to home. As for why I comment at all: figuring out how to frame issues is not a waste of time — it's much easier (less emotional) and provides a useful reference for future conversation.

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

#214

Post by smichel17 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #141

smichel17 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but…

The major difference is that the child labor affects someone else negatively, while tracking affects the consumer themselves.

Fair. See my cousin reply to Aunche for slightly more detail.

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

#215

Post by smichel17 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #182

smichel17 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument goes, if the monetization model is unethical, then it shouldn't exist. I'll demonstrate this by taking your post and rewriting it about a different industry. I am NOT saying these are the same situation, because most people have different views on tracking vs child labor. I am demonstrating that the argument makes sense IF you think tracking is similarly immoral. > Ok, that's nice in a fantasy world, but…

I'll bite that bullet and argue that child labor laws, like GDPR, are well-intentioned but cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain. First: If child labor laws were abolished tomorrow, almost no parent in a developed country would encourage their children work, and almost no employer would accept child labor. Parents want their children to succeed in life, and in developed countries that means sending them t…

It wasn't my intent to have this argument, so I'm not going to (I did acknowledge that not everyone agrees for just this reason, though). My cousin comment, reply to Aunche, describes what my intent was (tl;dr: explain the framework in which GDPR is reasonable, so discussion can proceed without outrage). I think I achieved that, and I'm happy you found the analogy strong enough to carry it forward :)

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

#216

Post by Aunche » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

smichel17 wrote: post #213

Aunche wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant. If the merchant is offering me content for the exchange of information, why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? It's already legal to "force" your customers to exchange money for content. If anything, it's even worse because a lot of children end up malnourished because the…

> The child worker is a third party that has nothing to do with the customer and the merchant This is a fair counterpoint; it is not a perfect comparison. I think it did its job though, to clarify (now with your help) the actual point of contention: > why should the government able to stop this transaction between parties that mutually agree? Most nations have a concept of human/inalienable/natural rights, which cann…

I appreciate your response, and I think my view is broadened as well :)

> do you think privacy should not fall into that category?

This one. Supermarket rewards are an example exchanging privacy for money that is rather uncontroversial. Obviously tech companies collect a lot more information, but I believe the same principle applies.