Live data from Hacker News

You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

matduggan.com

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#81
The reasoning treats a correlated characteristic as a causal mechanism.

successful person → unusual trait And infer: unusual trait → success

The most popular example of this in tech (that never seems to die) is when people notice moments where Steve Jobs was an asshole, or he said no directly to customers, and infer they need to be more like this because it's the unusual trait they're missing and need to emulate.

FDR's hatred was a byproduct of his consequential actions. But consequential actions are not the only things that produce hatred. In fact, rather petty actions can cause someone to feel hatred.

If you use hatred as a proxy for importance, you are effectively saying: "All impactful people are hated, therefore all hated people are impactful." This is logically equivalent to saying "All dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs." The metric has zero predictive power because the set of "hated people" is vastly larger than the set of "impactful people."

Friction is also terrible metric for progress. I would argue privacy has actually gotten worse due to the banners because if you decide you're not going to sign in to do something like a Google search (so it's not tied to your account), then you're immediately punished with a nag box. So you actually decide you'd rather stay signed in so you don't get nagged. Even if you're in favour of using the government, you should be using friction as a counter-signal. For example, switching to the Euro, reduced friction. Standardising to USB-C, you could argue this reduces friction for consumers.

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#82
post #72

I worked in a small startup in Berlin and I remember we used to have a person dedicated to handle GDPR stuff. She had to go to Berlin data authority periodically and report status. I was really surprised given how small the company was, why we needed a dedicated person to handle all the bureaucracy. Apparently it was the law. Also with the new package law in EU. I believe all these laws are how EU creates employment…

except the package law as it stands is going to force many small businesses to close because they can't afford the cost.

I think there will be more small businesses that would be created to handle all the package regulations and they will provide it as a service to all those businesses. I agree that it’s another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, but maybe that was the intention of the lawmakers

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#83

there is a whole campaign online about hating on the EU & its regulations.

Are you sure about it?

In fact,eu commission and parliament are Meta's biggest political spenders in most EU countries.

https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=onboardi...

Personally i find this type of knee-jerk reaction to any discussion about the EU suspicious

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#84
post #33

Banner gets a lot of attention because of the never-ending annoyance it's causing. It's like being surprised that someone would care about something so small as a little rock in their shoe. Yeah, you care about these little things. It is also definitely true that the regulations are largely written by people who do not understand the tech they're regulating and its potential. Again, not some weird controversial point…

I think GDPR is more good than bad, but the author's example of surveillance capitalism is easily repeated on most EU news sites. Visit bild.de and watch the network inspector light up like a christmas tree. Do you really feel your privacy is being respected?

The 996 partners banner is just the piss take that supposedly makes this legal.

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#85
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The do-not-track header is a nice idea but could never have worked. The GDPR is based on the idea that you can only store certain data about users if you have their consent to do so. Bearing in mind that most users have no idea what a header is and no idea how to configure their browsers, a user simply not sending a particular header does not imply consent to store information beyond that which is absolutely necessar…

Lack of do-not-track header is not a consent to track of course. It's just signaling non-consent.

I take your point. It would be nice to have a header that effectively just automatically canceled all the consent pop ups for you. But there are still some issues.

1) You'd have to find a way of writing the regulations without baking in particular technical assumptions about the web. The current GDPR talks about general principles of consent and data processing, not the specifics of cookies, headers, etc.

2) People can change their minds or override their general preferences in specific instances. Just because someone has a default setting in their browser indicating that they don't want to accept tracking cookies doesn't necessarily mean that they won't want to allow your site to store more data about them. So it is still legitimate for sites to ask them the question – and then you're back to the pop ups.

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need explicit consent for functional cookies, e.g. a session cookie or to store what preferences the user has selected on your settings page. It is implicitly given by the user telling you to treat them a certain way. For that you just need a notice somewhere on the page that reads along the lines of "this website uses cookies". It can be an unobtrusive note in your footer.

You do need consent even for the necessary exemption in practice because of how that is defined; the user must have explicitly asked for the function that requires the cookie: > strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service *explicitly requested* by the subscriber or user to provide the service. But this the basis for the OK-only style of banner, to inform the user that certain functi…

If you're in a shopping site and "add to basket" -- explicity requested.

If each page you browse on the shopping site shows what's currently in your basket -- explicitly requested.

If you checkout and get a list of what's in the basket and give you card details for payment and email for receipt -- explicitly requested.

No consent needed.

On the other hand, deliberately analysing log data after the fact for which products they looked at but didn't add to cart -- consent needed.

Javascript measuring which sub-parts of the page they lingered on -- consent needed.

Tracking how often they come back without buying anything -- consent needed.

Using the email address for anything other than order receipt and delivery status -- CONSENT VERY MUCH FUCKING NEEDED.

See the difference?

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#87
post #12

As someone who, until recently, worked in a company heavily impacted by GDPR, it’s a good thing. It forced the mindset away from “just do whatever is easiest,” to considering how it affects where our customer’s data is stored. Was it a PITA? Sometimes, yes. Was it stressful having a conversation with Legal to determine whether we had a PII leak under the GDPR terms that would mean we had to reach out to customers? De…

Well, it's the cost of collecting data. A lot of businesses don't really need to collect data. It's only the cost of doing business if you are in the personal data business.

For example, a newspaper or a blog have absolutely no reason to produce a cookie banner.

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#88
post #78
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No (what I’m fairly sure is being referred to is that) there are (very recent) significant additional barriers to trade between EU member states, which disproportionately impact small businesses.

I don't think so. The most natural reading of OP's post is that they are outside Europe. You wouldn't say "I can't imagine how much this affects small business in Europe" if you were yourself running a small business in Europe.

Unless you were in Europe and didn't run a small business

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#89
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Meta, but what’s the point of engaging in a discussion forum and writing a comment only to back out of actually discussing the points you disagree with?

It's a social manoeuvre, the idea is basically like standing up and clapping to show support. For example, maybe someone wants to support/oppose a position but is genuinely not the sort of person who believes in making an argument. From that perspective a little public "I disagree and question your character" post is an obvious tactic. The idea isn't to make a point so there isn't normally much reason to respond.

Re: You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

#90
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The most natural reading of OP's post is that they are outside Europe. You wouldn't say "I can't imagine how much this affects small business in Europe" if you were yourself running a small business in Europe.

Unless you were in Europe and didn't run a small business

Ok, but their post talks about making a product in small volumes. It doesn't explicitly say that it's a small business, but together with the first person singular language, that's definitely the impression given.

Also, their other posts suggest they are in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477186

Post reply on HN