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

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#351

Post by nitwit005 »

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

McDonnalds didn't hire any internet shills or anything like that. The media bought into their lawyers public claims about the case without bothering to investigate anything, and the TV talk show circuits picked it up.

Unfortunately, you often don't need to try particularly hard to get the media to repeat false claims.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#352

Post by ahallock »

adossi wrote: post #265
ta0987 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had ads for sketchy shit I googled at home on my personal computer show up on my work computer at the office.

I've had ads for things that I only just spoke about, out loud, to someone near me like a friend or family member, show up on a computer in a different country.

I've had ads for things spoken about show up in FB. I have more of a libertarian mindset, but that really creeps me out and I think speech-based ads be outright banned due to privacy concerns. It's not so much the ads; it's being recorded and potentially having those recordings leak in a data breach.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#353

Post by csours »

simpss wrote: post #256
csours wrote: post #171

Do they have to prove that the RTB ID can be used to retrieve PII? Or only that the RTB ID is correlated with personally protected information? Is it enough that a RTB ID is pseudo-anonymous? (it always identifies the same person, but cannot be used to find that person's real information) - OR - is a RTB ID not even pseudo-anonymous?

GDPR definitions are slightly different. A person is identified, if the ID references only one user in the whole dataset[1]. This also makes any information linked to the ID PII. the ID would be pseudo-anonymous if one would need some extra data, to which they don't have access to, for linking the ID to one specific user in the whole dataset[2]. So to answer your question, RTB ID is not pseudo-anonymous as it only re…

Awesome, thanks.

(5) ‘pseudonymisation’ means the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person;

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#354

Post by apexalpha »

frogpelt wrote: post #224
mumblemumble wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon . In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for d…

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit. 1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's. 2. She spilled it on herself. 3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries. Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask. A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider i…

I've heard this story numerous times as "haha in America X". Many of these stories go around the Netherlands...

"in America someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot"

"in America it says on the box to not microwave cats because someone once did"

"in America you get a gun when you open a bank account"

Etc..

Oh well I'm sure similar incorrect stories about Europe float around America.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#355

Post by wongarsu »

jeena wrote: post #208
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my last job the traffic was filtered through a proxy due to FINRA regulations. I’d see Portuguese ads for diabetes medication and there were 2 Brazilian guys in the office. Seemed like a major HIPAA violation to me.

It would have been a more funny story if it were ads for Viagra ;)

Because erectile dysfunction is funnier than diabetes?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#356

Post by zajio1am »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #239
calcifer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight. You have an opt-in way of telling them what you use, which you don't use and then get upset because your use isn't considered? What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house? Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions.

> What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house? Not use data from a mechanism that's controversial with some of the user base to drive decisions? Reach out and ask people , instead of asking their machines? > Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions. Sound decision making requires some kind of metrics and also sound reasoning . It doesn't me…

> Reach out and ask people, instead of asking their machines?

So you would have statistics biased by not accounting for people not bothered to answering these questions instead of not accounting for people not using popcon?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#357

Post by eitland »

luckylion wrote: post #240
gmueckl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement. An ad network that receives personal data is definitely a data processor.

> No, a data processor is any entity that collected personal data gets passed on to and where it is processed as part of the business arrangement. I'm relatively sure that there's another part: it's data processing for the client (here: Google) and the data cannot be used for other purposes. In this case, they don't process data for Google, they process it in cooperation with Google for the ad-buyers. Google also doe…

I discussed GDPR with you before and based on your answer here and maxidorius answer to you I will not accept anything you say about the GDPR unless it is obvious or has references I can verify.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#358

Post by TheArcane »

gnud wrote: post #285

Is it really a "workaround" if they're just breaking the law? I mean, if the allegations are correct, Google didn't find any loophole, they're just hiding the fact that they're selling person identifiers.

EU should raise the 4% annual turnover rule to 10%. Google doesn't seem to be deterred

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#359

Post by irq-1 »

ori_b wrote: post #321
nindalf wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't. Please tell me how you achieve security without storing hashes in a DB? The default is only for those who'd prefer not to run their own DB. You are welcome to run your own DB if you want. Why are you so upset that other people will be using a feature you obviously won't? Why are you upset when this leaks literally no info that your github repo doesn't already?

> No it isn't. Please tell me how you achieve security without storing hashes in a DB? I bet the DB is small enough that you could default to just downloading it and syncing on your machine.

256 byte hash x 10000 packages x 10 package versions = 25mb

That's a conservative estimate, and if you try to sync only what's needed you're no better off then not-syncing.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#360

Post by rat9988 »

TheArcane wrote: post #358
gnud wrote: post #285

Is it really a "workaround" if they're just breaking the law? I mean, if the allegations are correct, Google didn't find any loophole, they're just hiding the fact that they're selling person identifiers.

EU should raise the 4% annual turnover rule to 10%. Google doesn't seem to be deterred

There is a reason they didn't. They fear the US government's reaction.

Edit: Why downvote? Do you really think that the US government will stay silent if the European Union threatens with such fines? Political tensions are something you take heavily into account.

Post reply on HN