241–250 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Denial of service is a perfectly valid route to GDPR compliance.
Only if the personal data is necessary to provide the service. And "my business model makes it necessary" doesn't cut it. Otherwise you need consent, but you can't DoS if it's denied. EDIT: removed wrong link.
What does that mean? Why did you link to your parent comment?
It is clear that FB does not plan to be GDPR compliant [1] https://medium.com/@bozhobg/facebook-doesnt-plan-to-be-gdpr-...
Well, they had a chance. It's a bit like the Titanic aiming straight for the iceberg but in this particular case I don't feel sorry.
Facebook has become a social justice issue (to steal a strong phrase).
Believe me folks, just delete facebook. I've been so much happier since I did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure if losing Facebook access counts as losing any kind of "technology". They cannot block the use of their FOSS code in Europe, isn't? I am not sure the impact of closing their offices in Europe, though I am sure their the most interesting work is done in USA.
I agree that Facebook isn't really "technology" and that losing it would probably be a net positive. I am worried that Europe will set a precedent that will discourage internet technologies from doing business in Europe disconnecting them from the world.
Good riddance, I say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, you have to be prepared to defend in court that it IS necessary. I'm pretty sure Facebook has the resources to have hired competent lawyers to advise them on that, and the money to afford preparation and execution of a strong court presentation of their viewpoint. And Facebook probably had more information on what is necessary for the system Facebook provides to work than people trying to guess that from t…
> I'm pretty sure Facebook has the resources to have hired competent lawyers to advise them on that You could say that about any of the resource-rich people and companies that have subsequently had their arse handed to them in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many people undergoing GDPR workplace training at the moment that I think people may stop and think
So many people or so many people in the web service tech industry that frequents HN?
This is a school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do mean that a government is less trustworthy than an independendent corporation? That a corporation will better look after the interests of its citizens than a government?
> Do mean that a government is less trustworthy than an independendent corporation? That a corporation will better look after the interests of its citizens than a government? Quite frequently, yes to both questions. Choice is key and many often feel more empowered to individually choose their company than their government.
When there isn't meaningful competition in a market, it's specious to point to the abstract possibility of competition as an argument for sucking it up and cozying up to the monopolist, who has structured your arrangement with them to limit your freedom and recourse as much as practicable.
A profit motive doesn't magically make the human foibles that the "Gubmint is baaad" crowd insists will lead to the end of human freedom — and puppies, too — more manageable, or less dangerous to the rest of us.
Believe me folks, just delete facebook. I've been so much happier since I did.
I haven't signed in for years, but I have stuff on there going back to high school (back when you had to have an education email address to make an account, now that I think about it) which I'm sure would be fun to look through down the road.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many people undergoing GDPR workplace training at the moment that I think people may stop and think
So many people or so many people in the web service tech industry that frequents HN?
I work at a telco/ISP and GDPR training (and graded tests) is mandatory for everyone, from customer support to CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that somehow any law is inherently wrong if it regulates trade at all? Trade is a means to the end of having healthy, productive populations. It's not something to prioritize above all else, especially in cases where trade hurts the well-being of populations. In the specific case of Facebook, near-zero of the users actually understand either what they are giving or the full extent of what they are…
Using strictly my interpretation of what I read above, if the person decides not to allow their information to be used by the service, the service is not allowed to deny them use. That's the part I think is an issue, and of course I may be misinterpreting. I have purchased a house, and used a mortgage to do so. In getting that mortgage, I was presented with reams and reams of paper that I had to agree to and sign. Th…
The bank is not required to give you a mortgage. The regulation says that if they want to offer one, they can't include "No camera, no keys" as a condition.