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

Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#451

Post by vanviegen »

pembrook wrote: post #325
energy123 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.

Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but in…

I've never seen anyone here, or elsewhere, displaying a positive opinion on GDPR without readily acknowledging it, or the way it has turned out and is (not) being policed, has many shortcomings.

I have seen people that are fanatical on privacy. Cheers to them!

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#452

Post by vanviegen »

dijit wrote: post #441
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)

Hear hear. My company had consultants come in to help with GDPR, I left after months of them being hired: more confused than I went in. So I went to the source, and I found it surprisingly easy to read and quite clear. I think theres a lot of bad faith discussion about the GDPR being complex by people who have a financial interest in people disliking it (or, parroting what someone else said). Heres the full text: htt…

> 87 pages and nearly every edge case is carved out. Takes 20 minutes to read.

That's some serious speed reading! :-)

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#453

Post by jlarocco »

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #319
energy123 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.

I disagree with this otherwise seemingly reasonable position. Draghi's latest report pointed out that overregulation is a major problem in the EU and costs EU companies the equivalent of a 50% tariff (if I remember correctly). Of course, Draghi's report has led to nothing more than a few headlines.

The logical extreme there is legalizing murder for hire, human trafficking, and a bunch of other crazy stuff.

Privacy is in a different category altogether, but there's more to think about than just how much things cost companies.

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#454

Post by jychang »

energy123 wrote: post #304
rckt wrote: post #270

I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…

I've stopped thinking of regulations as a single dial, where more regulations is bad or less regulations is bad. It entirely depends on what is being regulated and how. Some areas need more regulations, some areas need less. Some areas need altered regulation. Some areas have just the right regulations. Most regulations can be improved, some more than others.

I strongly agree with this position. This is basically the foundation of Control Theory!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

This is like arguing if "heater on" or "AC on" is better, which is a pointless argument. That entirely depends on what the temperature is!

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#455

Post by vladms »

wkat4242 wrote: post #439
nightpool wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I don't think you should have to show a popup to track the user's language preferences, whether they want a header toggled on or off, or other such harmless preferences. Yet, the EU ePrivacy directive (separately from the GDPR) really does require popups to inform users of these "cookies".

No it doesn't. A website's own preferences fall under the 'necessary for site functionality" exception. Besides how many sites actually have this as the only reason for cookies? Every time I get a new cookie banner I check it and there's always lots of data shared with "trusted partners". Even sites of companies that purely make money off their own products and services and shouldn't need to sell data. Businesses are…

No, preferences are not strictly necessary, check https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

I would on the other hand ask if I should really set my "preferred language" on every device I log in ?! Why not store it server side (not to mention, why not use the browser language selection to start with).

I do agree with you that most of the cookies we talk about are not at all "preference cookie"...

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#457

Post by pembrook »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #430
pembrook wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately politics has become the religion of modernity. Nuance and sober analysis like you've suggested do not mix well with religious dogma. It's much easier for people to react emotionally to symbols. For many here, 'GDPR' is a variable that equals 'privacy' in their brain computer. So any criticism of it or its implementation realities, no matter how well argued, will not be met with reasoned response, but in…

Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)

I would call this the religious zeal response, it's been parroted so many times here that it's become fact, even though this is false.

The full text of GDPR is 261 pages long with 99 articles and 173 recitals. Here's a condensed version and guide to reading the actual passages that matter, still 88 pages long: https://www.enterpriseready.io/gdpr/how-to-read-gdpr/#:~:tex...

And even if it was, being easy to read is not necessarily good when it comes to regulation, because this means there is a WIDE berth for interpretation by court cases and judges. This becomes a shifting target that makes compliance impossible.

For example, you could write a one sentence net-zero law that says "All economic activity in the EU must be net zero by tomorrow."

However, what constitutes economic activty? Is heating my home in the winter economic activity? What if I work from home? What about feeding my children food? What about suppliers and parts from outside the EU? Finished goods vs. raw materials? How will we audit the supply chains on each globally? Who will enforce those audits and how detailed do they need to be? Etc. etc.

To these questions, the religious green fanatics on EcoHackerNews will simply reply: it's actually super easy to comply, you can read it yourself, it's one sentence!

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#459

Post by xienze »

dijit wrote: post #441
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most criticism of GDPR on HN is a criticism of bad-faith attempts to pretend to comply, many of which are expressly forbidden by the GDPR. It's a well-written, plain English regulation, and I encourage everyone to read it before criticising it. (At the very least, point to the bits of the regulation you disagree with: it should only take around 5 minutes to look up.)

Hear hear. My company had consultants come in to help with GDPR, I left after months of them being hired: more confused than I went in. So I went to the source, and I found it surprisingly easy to read and quite clear. I think theres a lot of bad faith discussion about the GDPR being complex by people who have a financial interest in people disliking it (or, parroting what someone else said). Heres the full text: htt…

20 minutes to “read” 87 dense pages of legalese? Perhaps you meant to say “skim over.”

Re: Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws

#460

Post by insurancesucks »

rckt wrote: post #270

I get that too many regulations is a bad thing. But when we talk privacy and personal data there should be no gray zone. It has to be black and white. When I see a stupid cookie banner I search for "Reject all". There's no some data that companies can collect and process without my consent, they just shouldn't be able to collect anything without me actively opting in. Business never respects anything, but profits. Se…

Laws should punish wrongdoing. Regulations that seek to stop all wrongdoing place burdens on law abiding citizens and businesses that were never going to harm anyone. We can't stop all wrong upfront, and the costs of attempting to do so are substantial.
Post reply on HN