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

An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#151

Post by josephg »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #150
no_wizard wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember this. This started a wave of lobbying and PR campaigns from industry groups that lasted until ~2013 or so stating that the EU was going to use its leverage its power to "issue fines to extract the wealth of American tech companies because there aren't enough European ones". Worded more eloquently (though I can't recall exactly how, I think they may have said something about the "EU Technology Tax" or somet…

Isn't that basically what is happening though? The EU still doesn't have (almost) any big tech companies, and they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies.

> they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies.

Its not a conspiracy. US tech companies just keep blatantly disobeying EU law regarding personal data. A few years ago GDPR fines were so low many companies just paid them rather than comply with the law. It makes sense if the fines are much bigger now - large fines are (apparently) needed to bring companies to heel.

If you want to avoid the fines, try complying with the law.

I know people complain about the GDPR, but the requirements seems much less obnoxious to me than what adtech companies keep doing. I don't want facebook and friends to track me all over the web and sell that information to the highest bidder. I'm with the EU - these practices should be illegal.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#152

Post by earthboundkid »

josephg wrote: post #151
sebzim4500 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that basically what is happening though? The EU still doesn't have (almost) any big tech companies, and they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies.

> they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies. Its not a conspiracy. US tech companies just keep blatantly disobeying EU law regarding personal data. A few years ago GDPR fines were so low many companies just paid them rather than comply with the law. It makes sense if the fines are much bigger now - large fines are (apparently) needed to bring companies to heel. If you want to avoid the fine…

My problem is that GDPR/Cookie laws don't go far enough. If you can get out of the law by showing an obnoxious banner, it's not helping anyone. It should just be illegal to use behavior data to show ads to people, period. We had a systems that worked for 100 years based on general demographics, and they worked fine. Show me an ad based on the fact hat I'm reading TechCrunch, not based on the fact that I was Googling "broken lawnmower hand reach blade bolt safe??" two minutes ago.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#153

Post by jart »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #150
no_wizard wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember this. This started a wave of lobbying and PR campaigns from industry groups that lasted until ~2013 or so stating that the EU was going to use its leverage its power to "issue fines to extract the wealth of American tech companies because there aren't enough European ones". Worded more eloquently (though I can't recall exactly how, I think they may have said something about the "EU Technology Tax" or somet…

Isn't that basically what is happening though? The EU still doesn't have (almost) any big tech companies, and they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies.

Even the Netflix TV show about that EU tech company that supposedly made a Google Maps competitor, turned out to be a group of patent trolls when I researched them and found out they were just using Stanford's code.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#154

Post by kmeisthax »

earthboundkid wrote: post #152
josephg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies. Its not a conspiracy. US tech companies just keep blatantly disobeying EU law regarding personal data. A few years ago GDPR fines were so low many companies just paid them rather than comply with the law. It makes sense if the fines are much bigger now - large fines are (apparently) needed to bring companies to heel. If you want to avoid the fine…

My problem is that GDPR/Cookie laws don't go far enough. If you can get out of the law by showing an obnoxious banner, it's not helping anyone. It should just be illegal to use behavior data to show ads to people, period. We had a systems that worked for 100 years based on general demographics, and they worked fine. Show me an ad based on the fact hat I'm reading TechCrunch, not based on the fact that I was Googling…

The obnoxious banner doesn't actually get you out of the law, in the same way that putting "no copyrights intended" into a YouTube video description does not make your reupload of Family Guy funny moments legal.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#155

Post by josephg »

kmeisthax wrote: post #154
earthboundkid wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that GDPR/Cookie laws don't go far enough. If you can get out of the law by showing an obnoxious banner, it's not helping anyone. It should just be illegal to use behavior data to show ads to people, period. We had a systems that worked for 100 years based on general demographics, and they worked fine. Show me an ad based on the fact hat I'm reading TechCrunch, not based on the fact that I was Googling…

The obnoxious banner doesn't actually get you out of the law, in the same way that putting "no copyrights intended" into a YouTube video description does not make your reupload of Family Guy funny moments legal.

Yep. The frustrating part is the cookie banners aren't needed during regular operation in order to comply with the law. When cookies are used for login you don't need to pester the user to consent to their use. (Consent is implied when the user logs in.)

Cookie banners are only needed when the website is doing something a bit dodgy - like behavior tracking for ads. Unfortunately, odious stuff is so ubiquitous that people think the banners must be necessary, and they blame the EU for insisting on popups instead of blaming the adtech companies for vomiting their crap into every website.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#156

Post by [deleted] »

lelanthran wrote: post #139
singleshot_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard.

> If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard. Preponderance doesn't mean "a lot", it means "more than the opposing evidence", and during a trial the balance sways between both par…

[deleted]

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#157

Post by singleshot_ »

lelanthran wrote: post #139
singleshot_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard.

> If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard. Preponderance doesn't mean "a lot", it means "more than the opposing evidence", and during a trial the balance sways between both par…

“If you do show up and refuse to argue your case, you will lose.”

If a defendant in a civil matter shows up and the plaintiffs case sucks, there is no obligation for the defense to put in a show and the jury (hell, even the judge) could rule in favor of the defendant who is presumed not liable.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#158

Post by taeric »

sangnoir wrote: post #110
taeric wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense. And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.

> But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret" They don't - the judge determines what should be sealed by weighing public interest against potential harm. In this instance, the article author disagrees with the judge's decisions.

Right, which is why I had my second paragraph. It is far too easy to assume the pedal is completely moved to one end.

I think it is fair to question judgements of people. Even judges and article authors.

Do we have any way of assessing how fair these judgements were? Do you have any way of showing that the DOJ was trying to get a "free ride" on revealing trade secrets?

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#159

Post by ghusto »

madaxe_again wrote: post #145
ghusto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us. OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.

Two reasons I shy away from naming names: 1) There is no such thing as anonymity from state actors on the internet. Apart from anything else, semantic analysis can accurately indicate the identity of the writer of content - never mind the full take interception that has been a fact of life in the U.K. for over a decade now. 2) I really don’t want to bring the hellfire that rained on said friend down upon him once mor…

Damn. Now I have more than just academic curiosity.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#160

Post by ghusto »

madaxe_again wrote: post #144
ghusto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.

I’m assuming you missed the part where they destroyed a friend’s life for trying to let this see the light of day. His wife ended up hanging herself as she couldn’t deal with the onslaught of publicity, and he had to leave the country for a few years, and now has a different, quieter, sadder career. But sure, I can’t see any reason.

> I’m assuming you missed the part where ...

Yes, I did. I only know what the OP said, and that it's almost definitely about Rupert Murdoch. Who was the individual?

Post reply on HN