141–150 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how GDPR works. You're not allowed to make use of your product / service require acceptance of collection of data. You must either offer it without data collection as an option, or simply refuse service.
I'm guessing, if that's enforced, that a lot of these same organizations will opt to refuse service.
Came here to mention Oath, but it seems the site has already covered it: http://gdprhallofshame.com/5-techcrunch-engadget-and-oath-co... Great idea for a site. I'm sure it won't lack content for quite some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In every email program, RE: stands for Reply. RE: is prefixed to a subject for showing that the current email is a reply to an earlier email. That is what is deceptive. RE: is not Regarding in this context but appears designed to increase acceptance by lying about the recipient receiving a response to an earlier non-existent communication.
Email didn't magically change the meaning "Re" to "Reply." It still means regarding; it's regarding the subject of the previous email.
Re can mean regarding, but in an email subject line Re: has been taken for decades by email programs to mean something very specific, "Reply".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's also a sizable number of companies that basically were already compliant... but aren't sure. It's not like you can submit your processes to the EU for approval. You don't actually know if what you're doing is OK unless, some day, a regulator decides it isn't.
This kind of problem is what lawyers are for. Unless, of course, one is shortsighted enough to compromise business in order to avoid being bothered with law compliance, a rather common attitude among the aggressive startup-minded audience of Hacker News. I look forward to GDPR-like laws in the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an answer to that question; at least not from someone other than their legal representative.
Well, i'm reading their silence as "We don't give a fuck about protecting customers' data.... cause its mine!" In the end, companies whom don't go through with the GDPR prep and implementation tell me precisely one thing: there's something in their process that makes it hard for them to comply. But not seeing "We're in progress to comply at $date" tells me that they're doing some pretty nefarious stuff. Is that actua…
I'm not sure there's anything they're doing that's not compliant, but uncertainty about whether that's true might be sufficient for them to consider it too risky to conclude that they are.
I think, if anything, the facts that the law is written is relatively 'simple' language, doesn't specifically mention any technical examples, and is widely expected to be enforced 'spiritually' and not literally, makes it particularly hard for lots of organizations to know with reasonable certainty whether they're in compliance or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of problem is what lawyers are for. Unless, of course, one is shortsighted enough to compromise business in order to avoid being bothered with law compliance, a rather common attitude among the aggressive startup-minded audience of Hacker News. I look forward to GDPR-like laws in the USA.
The trouble with the GDPR is that there is so much ambiguity in even quite basic areas of the regulations and the official guidance so far that any formal opinion you get from lawyers, consultants, regulators and the like is riddled with vague terms like "reasonable", "legitimate", "proportionate" and "balanced". It's advice that doesn't actually answer any of the important questions like "Am I compliant?" or "What s…
Also it stops a whole legal and compliance industry appearing in the grey zone as no one wants to abstract liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing, if that's enforced, that a lot of these same organizations will opt to refuse service.
A lot are. GDPR Hall of Shame looks like a list of these companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this a big deal? They probably sell your data or use it to show you ads or targeted content. Who cares?
People in this thread saw the title "GDPR Hall of Shame", possibly read it. Now they are trying to discuss stuff relating to "General Data Protection Regulation". My wild guess is people who are commenting on this thread care.