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

Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 195 posts

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#41

Post by Nextgrid »

Ygg2 wrote: post #24
Nextgrid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the idea is that with proper enforcement the big abusers shouldn't be able to bypass it. The legislation itself is sane, it's just that enforcement is lacking. > even worse just retract from the market I disagree that this is worse - if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market then it opens the doors for privacy-respecting competition to take its place.

> The legislation itself is sane On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten. Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. [1] Second order effects like prevent rats/snakes by awarding award for rat/snake heads, lead to rat/snake farms. > if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.

I find the right to be forgotten very valuable in a world where everything is permanent, searchable and every little mistake will be used against you in the future.

> Implement RTBF in context of IPFS.

How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Not saying it should detect CSAM, but once it is found, how does one go about having it removed? You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)?

> You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.

If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#42

Post by happymellon »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

And if they did that it would also make them GDPR compliant.

They chose to put up cookie banners as a way of making to seem like the people making the laws told them to do it.

> 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them

This is silly. The rule is that people are allowed to opt 𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ in to tracking. Just because some companies use cookies for this doesn't mean that cookies are banned.

If you are using cookies to store your website's settings then that is perfectly fine.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#43

Post by croon »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

> Cookie banner has ruined the whole web.

No, all websites that have cookie banners do so because they were already ruining the web, the only thing you can blame GDPR for in that regard is visualizing it.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#44

Post by solarkraft »

Ygg2 wrote: post #24
Nextgrid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the idea is that with proper enforcement the big abusers shouldn't be able to bypass it. The legislation itself is sane, it's just that enforcement is lacking. > even worse just retract from the market I disagree that this is worse - if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market then it opens the doors for privacy-respecting competition to take its place.

> The legislation itself is sane On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten. Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. [1] Second order effects like prevent rats/snakes by awarding award for rat/snake heads, lead to rat/snake farms. > if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.

IPFS already has to deal with other kinds of forbidden content.

Could you elaborate on the second order effects?

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#46

Post by martin_a »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

Cookie banners just make visible how hard you and your private data have been fucked all over the internet in all the years.

It creates visibility where there was none.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#48

Post by gspr »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

> Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them)

Fake cookie banners are illegal under the GDPR. Seriously, in what other aspects of life do people respond to terrible enforcement by saying the law is the problem? (Of course there exists a bunch of stupid laws that are also terribly enforced, but here the objective of the GDPR is not stupid – it's merely a matter of terrible enforcement)

> Cost money to company (so cost to customers)

Most regulation comes with a cost. The fact that this does, too, is kinda meaningless on its own. Food safety regulation comes at a cost – that, in itself, is not an argument against such regulation.

> A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

Are you seriously arguing that legislation to enforce such privacy standardization would be easier to enforce than the current GDPR? By all means, what you're proposing sounds great – better than the GDPR even – but massively harder to do.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#49

Post by TamDenholm »

happymellon wrote: post #42
fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

And if they did that it would also make them GDPR compliant. They chose to put up cookie banners as a way of making to seem like the people making the laws told them to do it. > 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them This is silly. The rule is that people are allowed to opt 𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ in to tracking. Just because some companies use cookies for this doesn't mean that cookies are banned. If you are u…

> The rule is that people are allowed to opt out of tracking

Sorry to correct you, but the rule is that people are allowed to opt-in to tracking. This fundamental misunderstanding is kinda the problem...

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#50

Post by solarkraft »

TekMol wrote: post #23

GDPR broke one of my websites that had tens of thousands of happy users. Users loved it and expressed their delight that the website exists on a daily basis. But when I tried to monetize it without ads and via Patreon instead, nobody paid. Nobody. Recently, Google said they don't think my cookie banner is GDPR conform. But gave no info why and how I could fix it. And turned off Adsense. So I finally took the plunge a…

It sounds like you encountered a small hurdle and chose to give up. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of websites are GDPR compliant while running ads.
Post reply on HN