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

Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

gdprhub.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 249 posts

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#211

Post by charcircuit »

jacquesm wrote: post #207
charcircuit wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you share information it is no longer private unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar. If you meant personal information then that doesn't make sense either. No one owns the fact that George Washington was male. It is just a statement that could be true or false. George Washington has no control over me spreading this information. Especially since he is dead.

You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy', you may want to adjust your definition to the one that the rest of the world works so that we can have meaningful conversations. George Washington's gender is of no consideration whatsoever in this discussion, so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.

>You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy'

I used the word private, but not privacy. I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at.

>so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.

It was an example of data pertaining to someone. I brought it up since I didn't think the word private made sense.

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#212

Post by charcircuit »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #86
charcircuit wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>common sense and respectful things that you should be doing with user data in the first place It's disrespectful to be nosey into what people are doing or to give them orders on what they can or can't do. >So beyond just "handling data" Grindr was getting paid (ads) for sharing your data to companies that could then also turn around and do whatever they wanted with that data. Good on them. They figured out a way to…

>It's disrespectful to be nosey into what people are doing >Good on them. They figured out a way to make money using information that they collected. These two statements don't jive. Its disrespectful to be nosey, but its fine if people buy data and be nosey into other peoples lives? That's quite absurd

>These two statements don't jive.

The first statement is about a user being nosey into what a company does with the data. There is an expectation for dating services to collect data like age, gender, etc about a user. I wouldn't really call them nosey. Since it's kind of expected for them to get that information from you. Is a dentist being nosey if they ask for your dental history?

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#213

Post by denton-scratch »

jen20 wrote: post #191
denton-scratch wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has no owner. It's not about ownership. It's about my right to keep private information private. It's a right granted by law: the GDPR. > Information wants to be free That slogan originates in a sentence that contrasts "information wants to be expensive" (because it's so valuable) with "information wants to be free" (because it's so cheap to distribute). It's not like saying "televisions want to be free, so I th…

> many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living And if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves (though likely not capable of that) and shunned by all members of the industry with any ethical compass.

Agreed.

But to clarify: I meant to include people who aren't directly PII sellers, just workers whose employer happens to sell PII, and even website operators with an ad-network on their site. They're just trying to earn a living, and I'm sure most of them are capable of shame.

A website operator who runs Google ads and scripts on their website isn't evil. They're just "awaiting instruction".

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#214

Post by jacquesm »

charcircuit wrote: post #211
jacquesm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy', you may want to adjust your definition to the one that the rest of the world works so that we can have meaningful conversations. George Washington's gender is of no consideration whatsoever in this discussion, so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.

>You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy' I used the word private, but not privacy. I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at. >so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman. It was an example of data pertaining to someone. I brought it up since I didn't think the word private made sense.

The GDPR, which is what you are commenting on is all about privacy and private data shared with companies for the goal of processing with a specific purpose in mind.

Privacy and private are very well defined terms in that context, and you are adding a unique spin on it that makes fruitful discussion impossible.

'information wants to be free' is a dumb line that got passed around a lot in the 90's by people who thought that they were being clever, but it turns out that there is lots of information that doesn't want to be free at all, and some of that information is about you and you also don't want it to be free.

Your example is nonsensical, and does not further the discussion either.

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#215

Post by jacquesm »

charcircuit wrote: post #210
MauranKilom wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then would you mind posting a dump of your email archive here? Or does that data have an owner?

You can't upload files here and why should I do the work to dump it and give this potentially valuable information to you for free?

That's called a cop-out.

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#216

Post by jacquesm »

nlitened wrote: post #178
jacquesm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but then you'd have to prove when this stuff was written because otherwise there are going to be a lot of engineers retro-actively in the field of fire.

Git blame their signed commits. If no records available, chief engineer gets the blame. I mean, that should be trivially enforceable — same as getting to know who performed a botched surgery.

I can see a lot of chief engineers moving to Somalia in that case :)

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#217

Post by jacquesm »

dmitriid wrote: post #117
KronisLV wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU is merely leading the way here, you can expect all of the developed world to have similar data protection laws on the books sooner or later. While i do believe in being privacy conscious, i don't believe that this will be the case anytime soon (or at least until a generational shift happens). No business is interested in having to suddenly comply with such regulations and essentially no longer being able to…

> No business is interested in having to suddenly comply with such regulations jesus christ. enough with this bullshit. Data protection laws had been a thing in European countries for a decade before GDPR. GDPR itself gave everyone two years to comply. GDPR was published in 2016, five years ago . There's no effing "suddenly". If this is "suddenly" for your business, and your business still hasn't figured out how to n…

I get you're pissed off but it is probably more productive to keep a lid on it and stay constructive.

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#218

Post by scrollaway »

e0a74c wrote: post #36
scrollaway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your alternative? Clearly people use the app because the app answers a user need. So what’s your answer to the user need?

We also got laid before the invention of the smartphone, you know...

And we also lived fulfilling lives before the invention of the smartphone, tv, printing press, sewer system or agriculture. What exactly is your point?

There’s a user need. In this case it addresses the needs of a minority that’s been, until recently, highly oppressed. You don’t get to just say “things were fine before this existed”.

When something imperfect solves a real problem you don’t get to just say “oh just don’t use it”, especially when it’s not a problem YOU have. Talk about privilege!

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#219

Post by olalonde »

jacquesm wrote: post #114
olalonde wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather let people freely decide what they want to do with their data. But this is no longer possible in Europe unfortunately.

It's the opposite, actually. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

You can't give your data to a company which is not compliant with GDPR (for all practical purposes).

Re: Grindr €6.5M fined for not collecting users’ valid consent for sharing data

#220

Post by mmarq »

jacquesm wrote: post #65
darrenf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No business is interested in having to suddenly comply with such regulations Just to pick up on this clause - it really needn't have been sudden. The regulation was adopted just over 2 years before enforcement kicked in[0], and of course it was written and debated for a while prior to that. In the UK the ICO researched the implications (for what were then just proposals) back in 2013[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org…

And before that we had the DPD, which companies routinely ignored because they would never get fined. That's the only part of the GDPR that made companies take notice: the fact that the GDPR has some pretty impressive teeth. I'm actually quite surprised at the restraint on display so far by regulators, but I'm also quite sure that it is a matter of time before a repeat offender will be shown just how powerful this la…

Regulators are contacting businesses which they suspect are in breach of GDPR to give them the chance to become compliant (I was in companies that received such communications). If the company is in good faith, they’ll fix whatever the regulator found or explain why haven’t breached the law. These cases don’t get discussed in the media probably because they aren’t published anywhere.

Before a company gets a fine, at least for now, it must do some really crazy stuff and/or refuse to cooperate with the regulators.

Post reply on HN