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

You Know GDPR Is Good Based on Who Hates It

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 184 posts

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

#91

Post by ahartmetz »

blainm wrote: post #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…

TFA talks exclusively about being hated by the right people. If you are only hated by the right people (yes, I made an adjustment there), it's probalby not because you are a jerk. Come on.

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

#92

Post by nraynaud »

maccard wrote: post #15
brainwad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cookie banners come from the earlier ePrivacy Directive, and while it was possible to comply by not storing cookies at all, if you want to store data on the user's browser you do need to get their consent, hence the cookie banner.

They do come from the ePrivacy directive but; > if you want to store data on the user's browser you do need to get their consent, hence the cookie banner. No - you need consent for storing cookies that are not “strictly necessary”. I can implement an offline app that stores data in cookies without consent. The current usage of the banner is overly litigious US focused simplification combined with malicious compliance…

in particular, if you store stuff in the browser, and don't send it to the server later (local storage or one of the other 1000 JS APIs), there is no reason to present a cookie banner.

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

#93

Post by Timon3 »

amriksohata wrote: post #67

If someone hates something doesnt mean that the other thing is good, thats a bizarre assumption. Im all for GDPR but has it helped stopped our data truly getting out? No just look at social media companies using subversive tactics.

I have relevant personal experience here:

At a previous job, I didn't have a company phone when I got set up, so when I signed up for a tool we all used, I used my real phone number. Unfortunately it was an American company, and from that day FOR YEARS I got spam calls, which I never got before.

I can't prove it was them, but it feels like I got too naive because there was never trouble giving my real number to services...

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

#94

Post by rcxdude »

brainwad wrote: post #21
maccard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do come from the ePrivacy directive but; > if you want to store data on the user's browser you do need to get their consent, hence the cookie banner. No - you need consent for storing cookies that are not “strictly necessary”. I can implement an offline app that stores data in cookies without consent. The current usage of the banner is overly litigious US focused simplification combined with malicious compliance…

No cookie is strictly necessary, you can encode it all into request tokens in the URL, so this is a meaningless exception.

The ePrivacy directive basically defines it as 'any data your site gives to the user's terminal that the terminal then passes back to your site'. Request tokens in the URL would qualify, but notably storing something in localStorage with javascript that is never sent back would not.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

ahartmetz wrote: post #91
blainm wrote: post #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…

TFA talks exclusively about being hated by the right people. If you are only hated by the right people (yes, I made an adjustment there), it's probalby not because you are a jerk. Come on.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by 9dev »

throw8484949ii wrote: post #46
9dev wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm responsible for GDPR in a small European company that processes fairly sensitive data. It's not that complicated as people like you make it out to be - if you're willing to actually try to do the right thing.

[flagged]

You don’t need to hire such a person since you’re way too small for the thresholds. And besides, if you’re unable to accept that you have a social responsibility when you run a business, I don’t know what to tell you?

You also have to keep up with other regulations; that’s the price of doing business. And the churn you’re talking about is way less than you make it to be; it’s not like there is change every month.

We never even once got fined, because we try our best to only store data we need, not track users, and secure the data we have to store as well as we can.

If you indeed do end up with authorities auditing your business, they absolutely value if you’ve tried your best as opposed to not caring at all; I’ve seen that multiple times with friends in various places .

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

#98

Post by contubernio »

nonethewiser wrote: post #64
blfr wrote: 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…

You know GDPR is bad based on what it is

As a dual American-European (citizenship in both, lived in both) I celebrate the EU data privacy laws and lament the absolute lack of protection of data or privacy that prevails in the US. Because of US based websites the genealogical history of my extended family (to many degrees), my past US residence history, etc. are easily available online, while in the EU it is very difficult to obtain any information online whatsoever about me or my immediate family (based in the EU), where we live, or even what we do for a living.

Most of the websites that are bad (operationally) in the GDPR sense are based in the US or represent US based entities. It is primarily US based entities that engage in bad faith fake compliance.

All this reflects the complete deterioration of basic business ethics in the US that has been led by the piracy culture that dominates in the tech sector, where the mentality is to bend or break every rule as much as possible, suffer the fines as business cost, and so on.

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

#99

Post by samrus »

nonethewiser wrote: post #66
marcle wrote: post #52

Tobacco control advocates sometimes referred to a "scream test": the more vigorously the industry opposed a measure, the more likely that the measure was effective.

Yeah but don't tobacco control advocates want to kill the tobacco industry? We don't want to kill the tech industry - surely the tech industry's pain is widely felt sometimes.

They dont want to kill the industry, they want consumers to be informed of the risks and stakes. If that makes consumers not want to consume tobacco then tough luck but the tobacco industry cant be allowed to operate based on lies and misdirection

Same goes for data harvesting in tech

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

#100

Post by contubernio »

throw8484949ii wrote: post #46
9dev wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm responsible for GDPR in a small European company that processes fairly sensitive data. It's not that complicated as people like you make it out to be - if you're willing to actually try to do the right thing.

[flagged]

Part of running a profitable business is doing the right thing. Following socially obligated rules is a cost just like buying drywall.

The profits at all cost mentality is a criminal mentality. Maybe it gets away with not being formally criminal because laws or enforcement are weak (as is the case in the USA) but that doesn't justify the mentality.

Post reply on HN