Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet
-
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
50 employees mean at least $40,000 in payroll alone.
50 employees means diddly squat in payroll alone. They could all be part time.
Good luck finding 50 people willing to work 1 day a month. Even if they were all quarter time working way below federal minimum wage, it's still $10,000. And if you pay $10,000 in wages, you must have at least that much in revenue - most likely much more, since you employ 50 freaking people there. A one time expenditure of $5,000 plus a monthly $200 shouldn't make much difference in your bottom line. Yes, these are made up numbers, but they're the most agreeable numbers I could make up.
TIL lawyers cost $2/eternity.
Are you familiar with the concept of figure of speech?
-
@masonwheeler said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@pie_flavor said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
giant binary size
...will actually be smaller than the combined binary size of all the libraries, even before you apply a linker.
Thank you for actually responding to a post that you downvote!
The binary size will be smaller for one program. And then you install fifty more that all use the same big library, and you're suddenly using a lot more space than you need to.unlicensable libraries
Huh? Who said anything about unlicensable libraries?!? Have you been talking to @shoulder-alien again?
It's very simple. Many open-source licenses are only satisfiable when the library is downloaded from its source instead of packaged with the program if the program is not under the same license. That's not compatible with static linking unless you expect to recompile the program on the target computer.
-
@Luhmann I don't read moonspeke.
-
@Luhmann The point isn't that he's not responsible for it. Where did you get that? I didn't type it.
The point is that he isn't aware of it.
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
I don't know what kind of sushi shops you have in Amazonland, but over here, most small restaurants have their menu posted as single image.
It's very common to order stuff online. I avoid sushi places but pizza parlors and Chinese delivery places all have online stuff. Then you get into 3rd party services that allow you to order from a variety of restaurants (e.g., Grubhub or Uber Eats).
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Good luck finding 50 people willing to work 1 day a month. Even if they were all quarter time working way below federal minimum wage, it's still $10,000. And if you pay $10,000 in wages, you must have at least that much in revenue - most likely much more, since you employ 50 freaking people there. A one time expenditure of $5,000 plus a monthly $200 shouldn't make much difference in your bottom line. Yes, these are made up numbers, but they're the most agreeable numbers I could make up.
Small businesses often run on very small margins. Your example is stupid and you should feel stupid. Compliance costs are always big business's friend for exactly this reason (plus they probably have significant influence in the original rule making).
-
@boomzilla And they often have lawyers on staff, so the extra legal work is negligible. Because they're already covering all of that.
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
I don't know what kind of sushi shops you have in Amazonland, but over here, most small restaurants have their menu posted as single image. Most don't even have a website - they just make a Facebook fanpage.
Hello trees! Say-- have you guys seen a forest around here?
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
How's that different from any other illegal activity conducted by business that the owner is unaware of?
It's... not? Where did I say it was?
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
He doesn't, but sidebar ad provider definitely does. This law is mostly targeted at businesses that make a living of trading information about random people. And it seems fairly effective, looking at the lack of ad cookies in my fresh browser installation that I've been using for a week.
Then why doesn't it cover the trading of information instead of the collecting of it?
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Are you suggesting there should be separate sets of laws for people we like and people we don't like?
No; I'm suggesting the law should be precisely targeted to lead to the desired outcome with a minimum of annoyance.
You gave an example already: if the intent of the law is to prevent the sale of personal information, why doesn't it say anything about that?
-
@blakeyrat
And then you wonder why people call you a stupid moron
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And if you pay $10,000 in wages, you must have at least that much in revenue - most likely much more, since you employ 50 freaking people there.
Fuckin Startups. How do they work?
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
plus a monthly $200 shouldn't make much difference in your bottom line.
My GDPR Compliance costs shouldn't be as much as the fucking server.
-
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And if you pay $10,000 in wages, you must have at least that much in revenue - most likely much more, since you employ 50 freaking people there.
Fuckin Startups. How do they work?
If they have no revenue, they don't.
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
plus a monthly $200 shouldn't make much difference in your bottom line.
My GDPR Compliance costs shouldn't be as much as the fucking server.
Neither should be your income tax, but here we are.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Then why doesn't it cover the trading of information instead of the collecting of it?
Because GPDR isn't about preventing the sale of personal data, it's about preventing any accidental or deliberate usage of personal data without getting the person's consent first.
When a company gets hacked, or a negligent employee sends a copy of the data to the wrong person in an cleartext email, or a manager decides he can monetize your personal data in a way that doesn't respect your rights, you don't care if the company to blame is the one you deal with, or a third-party. The results are the same.
The "sky is falling" reactions are pretty amusing to watch. Do you also protest against single-person webshops having to comply with stringent regulations if they process credit card data?
The solution is simple: those sites rely on a payment processor to handle this. Just like they'll rely on the software and web hosting providers to handle GPDR compliance for them.(Plus I have to admit it's pretty funny seeing Americans up in arms about another country creating rules that affect them. Because the USA government does this all the time. They even strongarmed EU banks into providing them access to the data of all bank customers, even those who have nothing to do with the USA.)
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Plus I have to admit it's pretty funny seeing Americans up in arms about another country creating rules that affect them. Because the USA government does this all the time.
We get up in arms all the time for the stuff the USA government does, too, in case you were wondering.
-
I'm sure you personally do. But everybody doesn't think like that.
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@The_Quiet_One said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
IP addresses do not have that level of security risk. You can't use an IP address to steal one's identity or make unauthorized transactions if stolen.
Webstore X stores your IP address history, your name and your house address. Because their security is terrible, they get hacked and the database ends up in a public dump.
Website/forum Y, in which you do not want to reveal your real name or even acknowledge publicly that you're a member (think porn, controversial political party, or TDWTF garage), stores your IP address history and your nickname. Because their security is terrible, they get hacked and the database ends up in a public dump.
Anyone can use your IP address history to link both sources, and end up with the real names and mail addresses of members of site Y. With a bit of trivial coding, you can even automatize blackmail ("we know you're a member of Y, pay us 1 BTC or we'll publicly reveal your real name").
Lesson learned: by itself, your IP address may not be enough to identify you with certainty, but it's sensitive enough to be classified as PII.
In those cases GDPR will do jack shit to prevent that. For each of those sites they will simply continue to store that info, disclose it on their privacy policy, and justify it with the many legitimate reasons to store said data.
The breach will likely open them up to litigation, but at that point you are beyond the scope of GDPR. The whole regulation is smoke and mirrors masquerading as something that pretends to actually improve privacy when in fact it doesn't.
Plus I'd love to hear an actual real life cases where the scenario you just illustrated happened.
-
For each of those sites they will simply continue to store that info, disclose it on their privacy policy, and justify it with the many legitimate reasons to store said data.
They'll have to provide a reasonable explanation for keeping the data (not just "because we can") and users will have a way to opt out.
The breach will likely open them up to litigation, but at that point you are beyond the scope of GDPR.
The whole GPDR thing includes much stiffer penalties than before for non-compliance. Companies will now have to evaluate if keeping personal data is actually worth the risk.
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
For each of those sites they will simply continue to store that info, disclose it on their privacy policy, and justify it with the many legitimate reasons to store said data.
They'll have to provide a reasonable explanation for keeping the data (not just "because we can") and users will have a way to opt out.
Oh? So there are "explanation police" going around and auditing websites explanations of why they're keeping data? And this is no way chilling speech? Is there a list of approved explanations or do you just have to trust in the mercy of the bureaucrats?
The breach will likely open them up to litigation, but at that point you are beyond the scope of GDPR.
The whole GPDR thing includes much stiffer penalties than before for non-compliance. Companies will now have to evaluate if keeping personal data is actually worth the risk.
Or they'll just have to block EU residents wherever possible and enact other workarounds.
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
(Plus I have to admit it's pretty funny seeing Americans up in arms about another country creating rules that affect them. Because the USA government does this all the time. They even strongarmed EU banks into providing them access to the data of all bank customers, even those who have nothing to do with the USA.)
I gotta ask, because I hear this hypocritical pattern a lot, and it never made any sense to me. If you've been upset at one government entity doing something you don't like, why aren't you just as upset when your own government entity does? It's a weak argument to say, "Well, your government's been doing this thing we don't like too!" as if it somehow justifies someone else doing it.
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
For each of those sites they will simply continue to store that info, disclose it on their privacy policy, and justify it with the many legitimate reasons to store said data.
They'll have to provide a reasonable explanation for keeping the data (not just "because we can") and users will have a way to opt out.
People have already brought up reasonable explanations: digital forensics for security and sending security codes to attempted logins from unknown IPs.
The breach will likely open them up to litigation, but at that point you are beyond the scope of GDPR.
The whole GPDR thing includes much stiffer penalties than before for non-compliance. Companies will now have to evaluate if keeping personal data is actually worth the risk.
...or if doing business in the EU at all is worth the financial overhead of hiring lawyers to be compliant. The problem with the law is it is way to easy to have the best intentions and still manage to "violate" them. For instance, what if I had a technical question on a forum and mentioned my IP because I thought it was germane to the question at hand? The forum administrators had absolutely no intent to store IP addresses, and the user in question was the one who posted the question, but now that the post is stored, and forum posts rarely if ever expire, the forum administrators are technically in violation. And knowing how bloodthirsty I've seen prosecutors get, there's no guarantee they'll be at all reasonable as they fine the forum owners into bankruptcy. Let me ask you, is it worth the risk for me to allow EU members into the forum if that's a possibility?
Oh, and by the way, I'm still waiting for some actual cases that reflect the IP scenario you gave. So far, you haven't even given us anecdotal evidence.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
I gotta ask, because I hear this hypocritical pattern a lot, and it never made any sense to me. If you've been upset at one government entity doing something you don't like, why aren't you just as upset when your own government entity does? It's a weak argument to say, "Well, your government's been doing this thing we don't like too!" as if it somehow justifies someone else doing it.
It's well-known that two wrongs make a right.
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@The_Quiet_One said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
IP addresses do not have that level of security risk. You can't use an IP address to steal one's identity or make unauthorized transactions if stolen.
Webstore X stores your IP address history, your name and your house address. Because their security is terrible, they get hacked and the database ends up in a public dump.
Website/forum Y, in which you do not want to reveal your real name or even acknowledge publicly that you're a member (think porn, controversial political party, or TDWTF garage), stores your IP address history and your nickname. Because their security is terrible, they get hacked and the database ends up in a public dump.
Anyone can use your IP address history to link both sources, and end up with the real names and mail addresses of members of site Y. With a bit of trivial coding, you can even automatize blackmail ("we know you're a member of Y, pay us 1 BTC or we'll publicly reveal your real name").
Lesson learned: by itself, your IP address may not be enough to identify you with certainty, but it's sensitive enough to be classified as PII.
Ok, but you've just started by assuming that some other website gets hacked and has all your personal information and you've included WTDWTF for no reason. There's nothing someone can get by knowing my IP address in WTDWTF's database that they wouldn't be able to get with, say, an email address, or my name.
-
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Whoops, forgot to update one part of that site. Guess we are now liable for millions in fines.
You're overestimating European customer protection agencies. They are not unreasonable and they certainly don't have the resources for thousands of simultaneous lawsuits. For a minor infraction, you'll get a strongly worded letter and that's it.
To get a fine, you'd need to be a repeat offender, ignore their letters or do something really bad like sell your customer's personal data to a scammer.
Source: I've complained about scammers to them before. It has to be really bad and takes quite some time before they do anything.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
(Plus I have to admit it's pretty funny seeing Americans up in arms about another country creating rules that affect them. Because the USA government does this all the time. They even strongarmed EU banks into providing them access to the data of all bank customers, even those who have nothing to do with the USA.)
I gotta ask, because I hear this hypocritical pattern a lot, and it never made any sense to me. If you've been upset at one government entity doing something you don't like, why aren't you just as upset when your own government entity does? It's a weak argument to say, "Well, your government's been doing this thing we don't like too!" as if it somehow justifies someone else doing it.
We're not upset at the governments - we're upset at the hypocritical people who criticize one but not the other. Also, at people who think the main goal of European Union is to make lives of American companies a living hell.
I mean, we are upset at the governments. But not for protecting their citizens against shady companies registered in Zimbabwe but operating exclusively in B*****m, with all management and employees also being B*****n.
The problem with the law is it is way to easy to have the best intentions and still manage to "violate" them. For instance, what if I had a technical question on a forum and mentioned my IP because I thought it was germane to the question at hand?
I don't think this scenario falls under GDPR. You don't have a database here, and no processing, and you have full consent since it was user's own initiative.
-
@Zerosquare said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
I'm sure you personally do. But everybody doesn't think like that.
Some men just want to micromanage the definition of ginger beer.
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The problem with the law is it is way to easy to have the best intentions and still manage to "violate" them. For instance, what if I had a technical question on a forum and mentioned my IP because I thought it was germane to the question at hand?
I don't think this scenario falls under GDPR. You don't have a database here, and no processing, and you have full consent since it was user's own initiative.
Forums do use a database. And unless storing of IPs is disclosed in the privacy policy, there is no explicit consent from me to store any of that info. You might argue that there is implicit consent but everything I've observed about GDPR indicates implicit consent is useless as a defense.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The problem with the law is it is way to easy to have the best intentions and still manage to "violate" them. For instance, what if I had a technical question on a forum and mentioned my IP because I thought it was germane to the question at hand?
I don't think this scenario falls under GDPR. You don't have a database here, and no processing, and you have full consent since it was user's own initiative.
Forums do use a database.
But do they use a database of IPs contained in posts? Because a database of raw posts is completely different from that. And you know that and you're just pushing all the definitions to ridiculous extremes because you're a programmer who's trained to be wary of the most ridiculous edge cases, and not a judge who's trained to be wary of common sense.
And unless storing of IPs is disclosed in the privacy policy
Storing post contents is disclosed in the privacy policy. If you don't run a program that automatically (or hire an intern that manually) searches through posts for IP addresses and puts them in a designated database of IPs, you don't need to disclose anything more.
there is no explicit consent from me to store any of that info.
You agreed for everything you post to be stored on servers and visible to other users, didn't you?
You might argue that there is implicit consent
The consent is very explicit. You checked the fucking checkbox!
but everything I've observed about GDPR
Most of what you've observed was panic and extreme overreaction. Unless you mean actual law, actual court cases and/or actual industry practices for managing personal information you've never asked for? If so, I'd love if you could provide some links because I'm at least as interested in this subject as you are.
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And you know that and you're just pushing all the definitions to ridiculous extremes because you're a programmer who's trained to be wary of the most ridiculous edge cases, and not a judge who's trained to be wary of common sense.
The law should be the former and not the latter.
The entirety of the EU has never had an incompetent or corrupt judge?
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And you know that and you're just pushing all the definitions to ridiculous extremes because you're a programmer who's trained to be wary of the most ridiculous edge cases, and not a judge who's trained to be wary of common sense.
The law should be the former and not the latter.
It's impossible because there's always going to be one @The_Quiet_One or another who uses insane troll logic to prove things like that receiving a letter with return address and not burning the envelope puts you in violation of GDPR.
The entirety of the EU has never had an incompetent or corrupt judge?
How does a better law help with incompetent or corrupt judges? Also, what particular changes would you make in GDPR so it's less reliant on judges not being fucking idiots while still protecting you from Zimbabwean online-only companies operated from abroad by your fellow countrymen?
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
How does a better law help with incompetent or corrupt judges?
Well here in the US the duty of higher courts is to interpret vaguely-written laws; and their decisions after the case become (practically speaking) law.
I dunno how the EU works, but my guess is: shitty.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@masonwheeler And all of this was started by someone saying that if they do block by IP, it must be because they're evil people doing evil things with the data. So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If you don't block, you have to comply with GDPR, which imposes large compliance costs even if you're already compliant
a) hire a EU privacy specialist
b) have him review all your code, all your dependency's code.
c) guess whether you're in compliance (non-trivial, because that's a seriously complex law)
d) take the risk of getting sued. Remember, getting sued is a cost even if you win. A big one.There is abundant literature on how to comply with GDPR and you do not need to hire privacy specialists, just like restaurants do not need to hire health and hygiene specialists. Business is all about risk, it's up to you to decide how to limit risk.
The GDPR came into effect because businesses where being extremely nonchalant and cavalier about personal data. It was necessary.
If you do block, well, you're giving up potential customers and you're evil.
Large companies which can very well afford the costs of compliance (assuming you want to take the most cautious approach, i.e. you feel that you will have at least fucked up somewhere, otherwise you don't really need to, and anyway you don't get fined straight away, you are contacted by whatever body is in charge of dealing with this stuff telling you that whatever you're doing is not compliant with the law so that you can take action) deciding not to serve EU citizens reeks of evilness.
-
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The GDPR came into effect because businesses where being extremely nonchalant and cavalier about personal data. It was necessary.
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, you know, none of this teeth-gnashing would exist.
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
deciding not to serve EU citizens reeks of evilness.
You're going to use the word "evil" for this? Seriously?
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
How does a better law help with incompetent or corrupt judges?
Well here in the US the duty of higher courts is to interpret vaguely-written laws; and their decisions after the case become (practically speaking) law.
I dunno how the EU works, but my guess is: shitty.
Even in Roman law countries/systems, when a court interprets a vaguely written law in a certain way, especially the further you go up in the judiciary pyramid, even though there is no strict precedent, courts mostly adhere to precedent (but are not bound to it).
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The GDPR came into effect because businesses where being extremely nonchalant and cavalier about personal data. It was necessary.
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, you know, none of this teeth-gnashing would exist.
The web is not national.
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
deciding not to serve EU citizens reeks of evilness.
You're going to use the word "evil" for this? Seriously?
Of course it's hyperbole. It's in response to the post I replied to.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
How does a better law help with incompetent or corrupt judges?
Well here in the US the duty of higher courts is to interpret vaguely-written laws; and their decisions after the case become (practically speaking) law.
And yet, Americans are always first to point out how awful is the idea to make more things rely on judges to determine the edge cases of what is and isn't legal. The main argument is how unreliable judges in USA are in making good decisions.
-
@blakeyrat and since you haven't replied to the rest of my post, I'm going to assume that you agree wholeheartedly with everything else I've said for now. In particular, that it's indeed pointless to make written law 100% resilient to insane troll logic.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The GDPR came into effect because businesses where being extremely nonchalant and cavalier about personal data. It was necessary.
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, you know, none of this teeth-gnashing would exist.
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, it wouldn't achieve jack shit. Right now, it applies to all EU residents and only to EU residents, which is entirely reasonable and fair in my book.
-
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU could be doing instead of what they are doing to improve the internet:
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, you know, none of this teeth-gnashing would exist.
The web is not national
You found @blakeyrat's point. Brillant!
-
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The web is not national.
Tough shit, Europe.
Maybe you should have spent the 70s and 80s developing your IT chops so American companies wouldn't dominate the web now. But no. You sat around eating cheese and let entire industries slip away. And now all you can do is fine the country that wasn't sitting on its ass and actually accomplished something.
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And yet, Americans are always first to point out how awful is the idea to make more things rely on judges to determine the edge cases of what is and isn't legal.
Having a court system where, if your law isn't specific enough, someone unrelated to you will make it specific and perhaps not in the way you intended is a great incentive to write complete and airtight laws in the first place.
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, it wouldn't achieve jack shit.
It would if Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple were headquartered in EU borders but, oh boo hoo, none of them are. But that cheese sure was delicious.
-
@blakeyrat Google, Microsoft and Apple are the least of our data privacy problems. I know it's hard to believe for a left pondian, but really not everything is about USA.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
deciding not to serve EU citizens reeks of evilness.
You're going to use the word "evil" for this? Seriously?
Pretty ironic given his previous allergy to the word.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU could be doing instead of what they are doing to improve the internet:
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, it wouldn't achieve jack shit.
It would if Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple were headquartered in EU borders but, oh boo hoo, none of them are. But that cheese sure was delicious.
What if we applied it to businesses that had EU Operations, e.g. servers, located in the EU I wonder if that would achieve the same result that the EU seems to want You'd even have a clearly defined boundary as to when you need to comply with an external law Plus there shouldn't be an argument as to why the law shouldn't apply to you
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@blakeyrat Google, Microsoft and Apple are the least of our data privacy problems. I know it's hard to believe for a left pondian, but really not everything is about USA.
I like how you left Facebook off
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And yet, Americans are always first to point out how awful is the idea to make more things rely on judges to determine the edge cases of what is and isn't legal. The main argument is how unreliable judges in USA are in making good decisions.
The smarter Americans are aware of this and point out that it's a good reason to have fewer laws and to be more careful when enacting them.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
The web is not national.
Tough shit, Europe.
Maybe you should have spent the 70s and 80s developing your IT chops so American companies wouldn't dominate the web now. But no. You sat around eating cheese and let entire industries slip away. And now all you can do is fine the country that wasn't sitting on its ass and actually accomplished something.
Even if true, the EU has all the right to say, America, suck my dick.
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And yet, Americans are always first to point out how awful is the idea to make more things rely on judges to determine the edge cases of what is and isn't legal.
Having a court system where, if your law isn't specific enough, someone unrelated to you will make it specific and perhaps not in the way you intended is a great incentive to write complete and airtight laws in the first place.
It's the same in Roman law systems anyway. With greater predictability though (on the other hand, they have less flexibility).
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, it wouldn't achieve jack shit.
It would if Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple were headquartered in EU borders but, oh boo hoo, none of them are. But that cheese sure was delicious.
The purpose of the law is to protect EU citizens. Companies still have a right not to serve EU citizens. What's your issue with this? You want to have your shit cake and let us eat it too.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Maybe you should have spent the 70s and 80s developing your IT chops so American companies wouldn't dominate the web now.
Maybe we should not help you with your revolution back in 18th century.
Why is everything about nationalism with you? We're talking about data privacy here.
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
And yet, Americans are always first to point out how awful is the idea to make more things rely on judges to determine the edge cases of what is and isn't legal.
Having a court system where, if your law isn't specific enough, someone unrelated to you will make it specific and perhaps not in the way you intended is a great incentive to write complete and airtight laws in the first place.
And yet Americans are afraid of leveraging this system.
-
@dfdub said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Whoops, forgot to update one part of that site. Guess we are now liable for millions in fines.
You're overestimating European customer protection agencies. They are not unreasonable and they certainly don't have the resources for thousands of simultaneous lawsuits. For a minor infraction, you'll get a strongly worded letter and that's it.
To get a fine, you'd need to be a repeat offender, ignore their letters or do something really bad like sell your customer's personal data to a scammer.
Source: I've complained about scammers to them before. It has to be really bad and takes quite some time before they do anything.
If you are judging what they will do based upon what they have done in the past, you are making a mistake. At any point in time that policy could change, some politician could make this their pet cause and up their funding and increase the pressure on them to nitpick people with the law.
I only trust what regulating bodies are restricted to do or from doing. It is the only way you have recourse if they decide you are worthy of harassment. "But you normally just send people an angry letter" is not a legal defense when they decide to fine you eleventy billion dollars.
-
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU could be doing instead of what they are doing to improve the internet:
If the GDPR only applied within EU borders, it wouldn't achieve jack shit.
It would if Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple were headquartered in EU borders but, oh boo hoo, none of them are. But that cheese sure was delicious.
What if we applied it to businesses that had EU Operations, e.g. servers, located in the EU I wonder if that would achieve the same result that the EU seems to want You'd even have a clearly defined boundary as to when you need to comply with an external law Plus there shouldn't be an argument as to why the law shouldn't apply to you
Everyone would just move their servers to Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Switzerland/Norway/Morocco/Egypt/Turkey/any other country in the world not in EU. I know because this is exactly what happens with every other law that only applies within EU boundaries.
-
@boomzilla said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@blakeyrat said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
deciding not to serve EU citizens reeks of evilness.
You're going to use the word "evil" for this? Seriously?
Pretty ironic given his previous allergy to the word.
If you read my response, it'll be clearer to you. When in Rome... and this forum is populated by Siths.
-
@Gąska said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
you have full consent since it was user's own initiative.
It is always the user's own initiative to use any website or service.
-
@Polygeekery said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@dfdub said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
@JazzyJosh said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Whoops, forgot to update one part of that site. Guess we are now liable for millions in fines.
You're overestimating European customer protection agencies. They are not unreasonable and they certainly don't have the resources for thousands of simultaneous lawsuits. For a minor infraction, you'll get a strongly worded letter and that's it.
To get a fine, you'd need to be a repeat offender, ignore their letters or do something really bad like sell your customer's personal data to a scammer.
Source: I've complained about scammers to them before. It has to be really bad and takes quite some time before they do anything.
If you are judging what they will do based upon what they have done in the past, you are making a mistake. At any point in time that policy could change, some politician could make this their pet cause and up their funding and increase the pressure on them to nitpick people with the law.
I only trust what regulating bodies are restricted to do or from doing. It is the only way you have recourse if they decide you are worthy of harassment. "But you normally just send people an angry letter" is not a legal defense when they decide to fine you eleventy billion dollars.
Even under the GDPR, AFAIK fines are a last resort.
-
@admiral_p said in Good article on what the EU *could* be doing instead of what they *are* doing to improve the internet:
Companies still have a right not to serve EU citizens. What's your issue with this?
News flash to someone who should know better because they presumably work in software: this is an impossible ask for a site on the internet.