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

111–120 of 181 posts

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

#111

Post by throw8484949ii »

contubernio wrote: post #100
throw8484949ii wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

> Part of running a profitable business is doing the right thing. Following socially obligated rules is a cost

Exactly! But there is a fixed cost of doing a right think! It is much easier for facebook to do the "right think", than some single guy with no employees!

> just like buying drywall.

I do not have a dry wall. Houses in EU usually do not have a dry wall.

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

#112

Post by xg15 »

orwin wrote: post #32
petcat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the EU's own government websites are polluted with the same cookie banners. Are they "maliciously compliant" with their own regulations? Are they trying to "undermine the regulation itself"? https://european-union.europa.eu/

Yes. Basically the shop they used to make their website are shit, with shit incentives.

I remember, during the german Heat Pump Saga (the Ampel government passing legislation that effectively outlawed installation of new oil and gas heaters and tried to move everyone to heat pumps), there was a minor subplot where journalists found out that the Green party themselves couldn't successfully install a heat pump in their headquarters.

So in the interest of legitimacy, the EU institutions should really fix that and remove the banners from their sites.

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

#113

Post by ponector »

sourcecodeplz wrote: post #35

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

People are hating it untill goes abroad to the countries where no such regulations exists.

Like in Switzerland it's okay to charge double for the car insurance simply because you carry "unlucky" citizenship.

Or EU law about mandatory 14-day return policy for internet order. Ordered recently something in Switzerland and turns out it was a special sale where standard rules does not apply and items could not be returned.

Or mandatory USB-C charge socket. God bless EU regulations!

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

#114

Post by bko »

veeti wrote: post #84
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…

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.

So why is it good if it does nothing?

This is where you should apply eng principles. If something adds complexity without solving a problem, start by removing the complexity rather than tweaking

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

#116

Post by latexr »

andai wrote: post #17
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.

So I've seen some companies do it in a way that's not a pain in the ass. I'm wondering if that's legal. Because if it is, I also want to do it that way.

Not only is it legal, it’s expected by the law. It specifically mentions that rejecting consent must be at least as easy as giving it. Websites just choose to make it hard to reject, going against the law.

You may have noticed many websites have begun to be better behaved in that regard, for which you can thank organisations like noyb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB).

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

#117

Post by apexalpha »

haizhung wrote: post #106
unsupp0rted wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, recently traveling through Europe I mentally “joined” the campaign by seeing the ridiculousness for myself. I very much support their ideals and their people-centered mindset. But in execution it’s that meme: US rocket lands in slow motion on reusable pad, Chinese rocket lands in slow motion on reusable pad, European hand in slow motion closes a water bottle cap that is permanently attached to the bottle and…

Does the slowly landing rocket in any way improve live for ordinary people?

Yeah: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

Billions of people are getting access to information through it.

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

#118

Post by latexr »

petcat wrote: post #22
ChrisSD wrote: post #6

Note that GDPR did not mandate the cookie banners we see everywhere today. Those are a form of malicious compliance. Their goal is not to conform to regulation but to undermine the regulation itself in the eyes of the public.

Even the EU's own government websites are polluted with the same cookie banners. Are they "maliciously compliant" with their own regulations? Are they trying to "undermine the regulation itself"? https://european-union.europa.eu/

This again… I quote, with emphasis:

> Use of the cookie consent kit is mandatory on each page of the DGs and executive agencies-owned websites, regardless of the cookies used.

https://commission.europa.eu/resources/europa-web-guide/desi...

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

#119

Post by brainwad »

9dev wrote: post #101
brainwad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most browsers in the 00s had a "always ask" option for cookies. Nobody used it, because it's as annoying as gdpr dialogs now are. But it existed.

Yeah, but that's still way too narrow to capture what the law is about. The GDPR doesn't really care about cookies, or storing data on clients in some way. Instead, it's about end-users giving informed consent to processing their data. Not just by hand-waving away some disclaimer, but actually conscious of the consequences of that action, and why it is necessary to do so. I know this sounds all lofty and Brussels ivo…

Yeah, I was more talking about ePrivacy cookie banners, which really are about storing data on user devices. The whole thing exists because the already implemented technical solution was deemed inadequate.

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

#120

Post by blfr »

latexr wrote: post #105
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…

> 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. No one is surprised that anyone is annoyed by the banners. But it doesn’t make sense to be annoyed at the law¹ instead of the perpetrators. If someone is deliberately putting pebbles in your shoes you should get annoyed at the p…

If virtually all the websites operators make the same choice, then this is the result of GDPR. What's nonsensical is ignoring real-life results of regulation because it had some other intention. I don't live with its intention.
Post reply on HN