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

GDPR: Don't Panic

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 833 posts

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#751

Post by slrz »

alerighi wrote: post #633
p49k wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A multimillion-dollar fine without warning for a first, minor violation is perfectly lawful under GDPR Come on, this is just scaremongering. Newsflash: If you run a business, you are already responsible for adhering to hundreds of other laws in which the fines could reach millions. But you don't see people running around screaming that the world is ending, because they know that the laws will generally be applied f…

Which other violation could cost me a 20 million dollar fine ? Sure, they will probably don't give that fines, but they could, what if I run a small business that interferes with the activity of some other business run by for example someone that is friend or can corrupt the people in charge of doing the fines ? They will fine me for 20 million dollars, sure I can appeal, a normal trial in my country lasts at least 5…

> Which other violation could cost me a 20 million dollar fine ?

Tax code violations, for sure. Environmental regulations may also carry huge maximal fines. Some misdeeds can even lead to criminal prosecution and land you in jail (but generally, they won't, except for the worst of transgressions).

Note that the GDPR requires fines to be proportional to the offence. If you really worry about some regulator fining you for 20M euros just because they're having a bad day, you do have legal recourse available.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#752

Post by jacquesm »

albutr wrote: post #747
jacquesm wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a guess you didn't have any family and you don't know anybody that has family that ended up in a gas chamber?

I know several people who fit that criterion. I didn't say it wasn't rude, crass, impolite, or ignorant. I said that I don't think it counts as a hate crime, and that it doesn't fit the criterion for "menacing" society. How many people do you think fear for their personal safety because of that pug? For what it's worth, I grew up in a town that was roughly half jewish, reflected in my circle of friends. When I was yo…

> I said that I don't think it counts as a hate crime

That's curious given your background. I know a couple of people that still have the tattoos on their arms and one guy who literally has no family at all and it pains me to see that people think that this is just a matter of bad taste. "Gas the Jews" is not a joke, my sense of humor is pretty broad but it does not stretch that far.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#753

Post by taysic »

jacquesm wrote: post #615
SomeGermanGuy wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was made public two years ago, to give companies time to get compliant. It actually goes into effect next friday.

It was already in effect, it just wasn't enforceable and that is what is changing next Friday.

In effect but not enforceable means its not in effect in a way that matters to anyone.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#754

Post by albutr »

jacquesm wrote: post #752
albutr wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know several people who fit that criterion. I didn't say it wasn't rude, crass, impolite, or ignorant. I said that I don't think it counts as a hate crime, and that it doesn't fit the criterion for "menacing" society. How many people do you think fear for their personal safety because of that pug? For what it's worth, I grew up in a town that was roughly half jewish, reflected in my circle of friends. When I was yo…

> I said that I don't think it counts as a hate crime That's curious given your background. I know a couple of people that still have the tattoos on their arms and one guy who literally has no family at all and it pains me to see that people think that this is just a matter of bad taste. "Gas the Jews" is not a joke, my sense of humor is pretty broad but it does not stretch that far.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it wasn't a horrible atrocity that completely destroyed many peoples lives, and and I'm not arguing that the genocide itself was in any way funny. The joke isn't that the event itself is funny, it's the absurdity of context in which the statement is being made that's funny.

I can't even count the number of comedy central stand-up specials I've seen that casually make jokes about absolutely horrific things that destroy lives. Jokes that play on children dying, slavery, the holocaust, rape, murder, pedophilia, torture, etc. I guarantee you that both you and I both know someone (or are one person removed, at most) that has had their lives destroyed by one of these things, or something of a similar caliber. Does that mean that none if these jokes can be funny, in any context? If so, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a single comedy special that counts as funny; virtually every comedy special I've seen makes light of one of these horrific things in some way.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#755

Post by jacquesm »

albutr wrote: post #754
jacquesm wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I said that I don't think it counts as a hate crime That's curious given your background. I know a couple of people that still have the tattoos on their arms and one guy who literally has no family at all and it pains me to see that people think that this is just a matter of bad taste. "Gas the Jews" is not a joke, my sense of humor is pretty broad but it does not stretch that far.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it wasn't a horrible atrocity that completely destroyed many peoples lives, and and I'm not arguing that the genocide itself was in any way funny . The joke isn't that the event itself is funny, it's the absurdity of context in which the statement is being made that's funny. I can't even count the number of comedy central stand-up specials I've seen that casually make jokes about abs…

I'm a big fan of George Carlin, so I can see where you're coming from ('Elmer Fudd', if it rings a bell) and yet I can't cross that particular bridge. Sorry. But thank you for the conversation.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#756

Post by albutr »

jacquesm wrote: post #755
albutr wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that it wasn't a horrible atrocity that completely destroyed many peoples lives, and and I'm not arguing that the genocide itself was in any way funny . The joke isn't that the event itself is funny, it's the absurdity of context in which the statement is being made that's funny. I can't even count the number of comedy central stand-up specials I've seen that casually make jokes about abs…

I'm a big fan of George Carlin, so I can see where you're coming from ('Elmer Fudd', if it rings a bell) and yet I can't cross that particular bridge. Sorry. But thank you for the conversation.

Okay, I'm familiar with that. I get it, everyone's got their own limits on what they can make light of. And sure, ditto.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#757

Post by marcus_holmes »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #428
phyzome wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord, it's like you didn't read the article. Or, you're fine with a competitor who isn't afraid of entirely reasonable international laws coming in and eating your lunch.

We ran the numbers on how much it would cost to establish compliance, and with that alone it was barley worth it based on the current EU customer base we have. We also considered all the additional liability we’d be taking on, and with that alone it was barely worth it based on the current EU customer base we have. We’d also be very happy if one of our competitors started investing in the EU market. It’s worth about…

and what will you do when Canada follows in the EU's footsteps? Or the rest of the world? When they finally put pressure on the US to do the right thing? Because this is the right thing to do.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#758

Post by ckocagil »

gist wrote: post #684
mrleiter wrote: post #41

The GDPR gets so much hate because it hits so many businesses where it hurts: data. GDPR "simply" gives you guidelines on how you can handle data from people within the EU. And that that data cannot be handled so liberally as it has been before. Of course that's annoying from a business perspective, but from an individuals privacy perspective, it's fantastic.

> The GDPR gets so much hate Hate? Try to think of it from a business in the US perspective that wants to know why they have to (for lack of a better way to put it) bogu to an entity that does not represent them in any way. And the fact that you might sell something or service customers in Europe does not mean you should have to answer to any rules that they setup either. Should the town that I live in and operate a…

There have been many people extradited to the US for infringing US copyright laws.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#759

Post by adambrenecki »

> ... it may not be possible for you to lock Europeans out reliably enough...

Here's a fun little example of this: If one of your parents was a British citizen, then you're a British citizen 'by descent'—not merely eligible to become a British citizen after you fill out a form, you're an automatic British citizen by default unless you renounce your citizenship. (This has caught out at least one member of the Australian parliament, where dual citizens aren't allowed to serve.) This means that you can have someone who's an EU citizen (for the time being, at least), who doesn't live in the EU, has never set foot on EU soil, and maybe isn't even aware that they're an EU citizen themselves.

Re: GDPR: Don't Panic

#760

Post by downandout »

inopinatus wrote: post #715
DanBC wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s not true, and for many companies this is just a simple business decision. But likely based on incorrect advice. You haven't said why you think your company isn't compliant with GDPR, and it's possible your company is compliant with GDPR, or would require only minor tweaks to privacy policies to make it compliant.

If you ask US-trained lawyers (especially those with exposure to the tech or financial sectors) to perform an impact assessment of a European regulation, don't be surprised to receive a full-on Chicken Little response. The reality is that the law is not a programming language and compliance is about alignment with principles, not blindly following a set of rules.

Huh? The entire thing is a set of rules that must be blindly followed.
Post reply on HN