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

EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#111

Post by matheusmoreira »

qertoip wrote: post #105
matheusmoreira wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we make them prove they are not tracking users instead?

How about you prove your haven't stolen my Mazda? Because I believe you did stole my Mazda and it should be on you to prove innocence.

People are all equal and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, there is a massive power difference between a rich corporation and an individual. Inverting the burden of proof is warranted in such cases.

Your accusation would be very troublesome if made against individuals but for corporate lawyers its just another day at the office.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#112

Post by betterunix2 »

4cao wrote: post #6

Call me cynical but more regulation like this only serves to further entrench the existing (quasi-)monopolies by increasing the barriers for new entrants. Especially the focus on "illegal" content and political advertising only (as opposed to, say, advertising as such) makes it appear not as an attempt to improve the situation in general, but rather to carve a bigger slice of the extant lucrative pie for certain inte…

Yup, that is exactly how it worked with GDPR: big companies can easily afford the cost of compliance while smaller competitors struggle.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#113

Post by qertoip »

KDJohnBrown wrote: post #29

What the EU should really do is fine / tax monopolists like Google and Facebook into submission then invest that money into the EU-based startup ecosystem.

What Google and Facebook should really do is to tax/fine the monopolistic EU into submission and then invest the profits into whatever they feel like it.

Because Big State is worse than Big Tech.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#114

Post by Semaphor »

curryst wrote: post #91
weinzierl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For me (EU) [..]" You are probably not the right person to ask then, but I always wondered: How prevalent are these consent popups outside of the EU?

In the US, I see them fairly often. Doubly annoying because I know they don't even have to obey my answers in the US.

If their consent manager doesn't distinguish between EU and non-eu, I doubt they'll handle your data differently

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#115

Post by betterunix2 »

marcodiego wrote: post #9

It is good to see regulation that diminishes the chance of monopolies or abuses. I don't know if current safeguards help such guarantees. What could be interesting are economic incentives. For example, social networks profits could be taxed and part of the money acquired could be applied on independent de-centralized services. Imagine the impact if just a small amount of facebook profits were donated to wikipedia.

How is this going to diminish monopolies? Big tech is (a) going to have a voice in these regulations and (b) will easily afford the cost of compliance. Small competitors will have no voice and will struggle to comply. This is almost certainly going to entrench the big players and widen their moats.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#116

Post by spaetzleesser »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #55
melomal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is these ads are not exactly effective either. I mean you'll read about the guru's with 90% conversion rate at 0.50c per click or some garbage like that but when you run them yourself, with what is considered a normal company (not a unicorn) you somehow find yourself with a They are crazy cheap though and essentially act like a TV/Radio ad. It's about getting repeated exposure, even if it's not a direct con…

It’s not like the current tracking adds are super efficient always. I searched for a new washing machine, found one I liked, bought it, and spent the next 3 months looking at washing machine adds.

With a lot more AI the smart people at Google, Amazon and Facebook may find out one day that there are products you buy rarely versus products you buy repeatedly. Like washing machines vs potato chips.

It makes sense to show ads for potato chips but with washing machines you should stop after purchase.

I much preferred the time when kiteboarding sites had static kiteboarding ads instead of the current situation where ads are totally out of context.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#117

Post by Nasrudith »

jorge-d wrote: post #8
petre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would the EU enforce such a ban? They actually need to prove company X was tracking its users if it goes to court.

By setting very high fines for those who don't comply?

That is like saying if we make the punishment for any crime tortorous enough we won't need law enforcement. That only answers "what the punishment will theoretically be" not "How can it be found out when it is being broken? By whom? Will we able to take action against it?".

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#118

Post by qertoip »

marcodiego wrote: post #9

It is good to see regulation that diminishes the chance of monopolies or abuses. I don't know if current safeguards help such guarantees. What could be interesting are economic incentives. For example, social networks profits could be taxed and part of the money acquired could be applied on independent de-centralized services. Imagine the impact if just a small amount of facebook profits were donated to wikipedia.

> It is good to see regulation

It is never good to see regulation. Never ask state to fix the problem or you will end up with two problems. Especially, the Big State.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#119

Post by Nasrudith »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #111
qertoip wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about you prove your haven't stolen my Mazda? Because I believe you did stole my Mazda and it should be on you to prove innocence.

People are all equal and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, there is a massive power difference between a rich corporation and an individual. Inverting the burden of proof is warranted in such cases. Your accusation would be very troublesome if made against individuals but for corporate lawyers its just another day at the office.

Okay then how do you prove the government hasn't stolen my Mazda? They are even more powerful than corporations.

Inverting the burden of proof is listed as a logical fallacy for a reason. It is never appropriate.

Re: EU privacy agency urges more safeguards to curb U.S. tech giants

#120

Post by matheusmoreira »

Nasrudith wrote: post #119
matheusmoreira wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are all equal and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, there is a massive power difference between a rich corporation and an individual. Inverting the burden of proof is warranted in such cases. Your accusation would be very troublesome if made against individuals but for corporate lawyers its just another day at the office.

Okay then how do you prove the government hasn't stolen my Mazda? They are even more powerful than corporations. Inverting the burden of proof is listed as a logical fallacy for a reason. It is never appropriate.

Not only is it appropriate, there are already cases where this is done. Wikipedia documents some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus

Post reply on HN