41–50 of 61 posts
Why is this site blocked in the EU ? Was disabling cookies on your static page that hard ?
This website and topic is protected by a SEP field. Who cares about U.S. problems?
IE surveillance dickheads see what is in the US and decide to enact it in their local country.
In this case, it is handy to see how the conversation about such surveillance is going.
Is there more information available? This article is effectively one sentence long: > On Sept. 30, 2025, a Flock vice president logged into the Dunwoody PD’s Flock system and looked at a camera in the children’s gymnastics room of a private community center here in Dunwoody. And there is a lot being implied in this sentence.
Yes, this was a relatively big story months ago: 1. https://www.404media.co/city-learns-flock-accessed-cameras-i... 3. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/05/flocks-sales-pitch-inclu... -- commenting on the 404 Media article 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47784045
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m still not clear why US companies with no business units in Europe feel the need to make any changes at all to be in compliance with a law that has no jurisdiction over them, but agree that Geofencing is a cheaper solution than asking a lawyer.
The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it, no matter where they are. Many US news organizations chose to geo-block the EU rather than going to the trouble of figuring out compliance.
The GDPR can state that they're the masters of the universe but that doesn't make it true. They lack jurisdiction, they can't sue in US court. The EU suing an US entity, in US court, for breaking EU law sounds like a great comedy I really want to see.
If the EU doesn't want EU citizens to use some service located in another country, they should stop their citizens from going there, like at the border, like blocking the IP, domain, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they have identifiable owners who might wish to travel to Europe and not risk someone deciding to make an example of them.
the idea of the owners of a small, regional US news website being arrested while traveling in Europe because that site does not have a GDPR compliant cookie policy seems utterly detached from reality I would be more worried about being struck by a meteorite than such a thing
Again, I agree it is very, very unlikely. But it’s possible, and in an age of mass outrage it isn’t incomprehensible that some activist, somewhere, might latch onto something they don’t like and just doggedly pursue someone. It does happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but it means serve them specifically. If the main audience is US and some EU visitors happen by, it's not violation. Or at least it's not enforceable violation.
And that might even be true. But it's still at least an hour of retained council's time to deal with it. It's not even 90 seconds to find the geo filter button in your CDN of choice and save you the trouble entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a hyper local business. The chance of making any revenue off EU users is close to 0, which is much higher than the cost of figuring out EU compliance. The conversation went like this: IT director: “If we serve ads or collect data from EU users we have to be GDPR compliant. That’ll cost several thousand dollars worth of employee time” Exec: “how much revenue is attributable to EU users.” IT: “Single digit dol…
GDPR compliance is good IT practice. It's easy to do, good for users, and states are rolling out similar laws. But now, instead of their story being read by people all over the world, having gone viral, it's just going to pirated. Not only losing them out on revenue, but recognition as well. This is part of the long death of online local news. They can't be bothered to do the simplest things for their site (make pers…
A small local news agency prioritizes serving small local news needs. I used to work at a small local newspaper. Spending four or five figures of limited money on IT overhauls means that something else has to be sacrificed. It isn’t that they can’t be bothered, it’s that it costs money and doesn’t serve their community or customers. Being GDPR compliant hinders their ability to do local news since it literally takes resources to accomplish.
Local news is dying, but it is not because of GDPR. That trend started well before then, and is very well understood. The amount of news content is a direct function of advertising revenue not actual news to be reported. Craigslist and google undercut them and that’s really the only relevant part of the story. GDPR noncompliance has nothing to do with the success or failure of a news outlet in middle America.
Do you make sure that your work is fully compliant with all Chinese laws? Why not? They are the world’s largest market, after all. Do you even know if your work is possible to access in China? Or is it the case that compliance with Chinese laws is irrelevant to your business models so it’s easier to just do nothing. Same logic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it, no matter where they are. Many US news organizations chose to geo-block the EU rather than going to the trouble of figuring out compliance.
> The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it, The GDPR can state that they're the masters of the universe but that doesn't make it true. They lack jurisdiction, they can't sue in US court. The EU suing an US entity, in US court, for breaking EU law sounds like a great comedy I really want to see. If the EU doesn't want EU citizens to use some service located in another country, they should…
You can choose differently, of course, and I’m not making value judgments here. Just explaining why a small local news site would geo-block the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m still not clear why US companies with no business units in Europe feel the need to make any changes at all to be in compliance with a law that has no jurisdiction over them, but agree that Geofencing is a cheaper solution than asking a lawyer.
The GDPR states that websites that serve EU citizens are subject to it, no matter where they are. Many US news organizations chose to geo-block the EU rather than going to the trouble of figuring out compliance.
Funny init.
Rather than do the ethical thing and treat their own (American) users personal data with respect, they instead geoblock an entire continent.
Why is this site blocked in the EU ? Was disabling cookies on your static page that hard ?
No one is going to go around complying with random rules from other countries, man. If you don't serve that population, just opt them out.
Ever thought that complying with those "random" personal data protection laws shows a respect for users decency and privacy in your own country, as well as those users in the UK/EU?