8 ms·

I see this as yet another tax on (European) startups who have to invest even more resources into regulatory compliance. This prohibition of freely using all av

I see this as yet another tax on (European) startups who have to invest even more resources into regulatory compliance. This prohibition of freely using all available data will create great arbitrage opportunity for the shadow economy, and will have a net negative effect on innovation. I think prohibition has very bad side effects, and that MORE transparency is the way forward in politics, economy, and also society. This includes allowing businesses to use all the data they can get their hands on. People can produce infinitely more data than any google can realistically process. I cannot understand why people who are otherwise for transparency and against prohibition are celebrating this as a big win against FB/AMZ/GOOG, as those players can easily shell out another $10M here and there to be compliant with this regulatory monster.

usgroup 9y ago
This is about ethics primarily. If you don't care about ethics then expect an unethical economy.
- bflesch 9y ago
  I don't think it is about ethics, it is about control. We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US, and now they try to solve the problem by pulling down the US on our level (at least the parts concerning the EU market). I think this is the wrong approach, EU should try to make it easier for European businesses to compete with US-based ones. But in the end we have another layer of bureaucracy on top of all the things a US startup has to worry about, and those mostly non-technical/non-innovative people want to be a part of the picture.
  - kartan 9y ago
    > We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US Tracking people around the internet. To follow them everywhere they go and save their personal information, their political ideology, etc. It is not innovation, that's just stepping over personal rights. > I don't think it is about ethics, it is about control. Yes. About giving back control of citizen privacy to the citizens themselves. It is not the government that decides who can own your data or when to delete it. It is European citizens that decide individually who should have their data and whom can not. > EU should try to make it easier for European businesses to compete with US-based ones. If you give away freedom for economic gain, you don't deserve either one.
    - logicchains 9y ago
      >If you give away freedom for economic gain, you don't deserve either one. What gives you the right to deny others the right to trade their personal information as they see fit?
      - claudius 9y ago
        Well they can of course trade it as they see fit, just opt-in to those things and be happy? What gives you the right to force me to trade in my personal information?
      - majewsky 9y ago
        You make it sound as though the majority of Facebook users were making a conscious decision to trade personal information, whereas the usual thought process is "it's free! and everyone's doing it!".
        logicchains 9y ago
        Most people simply don't care. It constantly surprises me how paranoid people in the technology community are about their social interaction and browsing data.
        the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
        Normal people absolutely care. They however do not have the tools or know how to. Just look at how many people were behind the facebook lawsuits in Europe to see that those are not developers.
      - ionised 9y ago
        New laws. What gives you the right to decide that corporations are free to use my personal information for whatever they please?
  - discreteevent 9y ago
    > unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US Well the EU seem to think that not all of this innovation is good innovation and the law specifically targets this.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US I don't want US innovation. Thanks for the offer.
    - wolco 9y ago
      Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Many of those innovations are based on data collection and using that to make customer segments to sell targeted ads. Without that model you may be asked to pay a few dollars or see additional ads that are more likely to be less interesting.
      - Sir_Substance 9y ago
        >Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Like the fucking plague. You should too.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Plenty of us do.
        pmontra 9y ago
        I'm afraid it's a small "plenty" but as a European data point I'm using an Android phone right now. I'm not logged in any Google service with the exception of Google Play. My mail is not on Gmail. I'm not logged in Facebook too and I don't have their app. However I do have their Pages and Messenger apps because of work. Maybe I could ditch Messenger because almost nobody I know uses it. Everybody is on WhatsApp (another Facebook property) and a few people are on Telegram (developers). Could I do without WhatsApp? Maybe but it would be hard. I'm almost not using Facebook anymore because it's became so boring after 10 years of the same stuff.
      - tormeh 9y ago
        >Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? No. Can't. I can't do my job without Google and my social life wouldn't survive without Facebook (messenger, groups, events). Using these services is not voluntary at this point.
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
> I see this as yet another tax on (European) startups who have to invest even more resources into regulatory compliance. This also affects American companies and the degree it affects you primarily depends on how much of your business model was depending on you doing nefarious things with customer data.
- bflesch 9y ago
  Of course this affects american companies, as the whole thing is primarily designed as a weapon for the EU against US dominance in the consumer space. The big problem for the EU is that consumers actually choose the best product in a free market (the internet of free services), and they overwhelmingly decided to use the US-based options. All the framing as "nefarious" is propaganda, consumers choose freely the option they value the most. If someone else comes along providing more value than google or facebook everyone would switch in an instant.
  - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    I suppose we fundamentally disagree on a few things here so I won't go into a discussion about the motivation of this law (which I as a EU citizen support). I do however want to leave a note on this quote here: > All the framing as "nefarious" is propaganda, consumers choose freely the option they value the most. Customers cannot choose freely. I'm a customer and I cannot chose certain products because they do not exist. Companies I never engage with are tracking my activities through tracking pixels and other things and because I never establish a business relationship with them, I cannot avoid that. This bill now forces a company I might do business with not do business with companies that do not permit me to get rid of my data. I think this a good development because it finally makes certain backroom deals visible.
    - bflesch 9y ago
      > Companies I never engage with are tracking my activities through tracking pixels and other things and because I never establish a business relationship with them, I cannot avoid that. You can easily avoid being tracked by using an adblocker. Other websites only track you because they are business partners of the tracking companies, which provide a lot of value in terms of analytics for the business - free of charge. > I think this a good development because it finally makes certain backroom deals visible. As a German, I'd like to have more transparency into the backroom deals that are done in Berlin and Brussels. But this won't happen unfortunately, and they'll try to regulate IT to death to the benefit of local corporations who failed again and again providing the consumer with as valuable producs as their US counterparts.
Nullabillity 9y ago
> as those players can easily shell out another $10M here and there to be compliant with this regulatory monster. Sounds like you missed the part where the fines are based on a percentage of your global revenue.
- yohui 9y ago
  Parent comment is talking about the cost of compliance, not fines for non-compliance.
  - Nullabillity 9y ago
    True, whoops.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
I'm not sure "transparency" means what you think it means. Transparency is when powerful entities (companies, governmental bodies, elected officials…) disclose stuff about themselves. Allowing a business as big as Google or Facebook to use all their user's data as they see fit is not transparency, it's mass surveillance.
pascalxus 9y ago
It's true. GOOG/FB have the economies of scale to deal with this. Start ups don't. This will hurt start ups more than it does GOOG/FB.
- M2Ys4U 9y ago
  It's not hard to comply. Don't collect data you don't need. Don't collect data you don't have explicit consent (or a legitimate need) for. Don't use data collected for one purpose for another purpose. That'll get you almost all of the way to complying.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- hohenheim 9y ago
  If the start-up is to monetize due to lack of privacy laws, then this regulation is specifically meant to prevent such companies. If they are the middle man with no dependence on private information, then yes it will cost them to be compliant but it won't break their business model.
AndyMcConachie 9y ago
As an EU citizen I don't really care about a definition of innovation that involves monetizing my data against my will or knowledge. That's not innovation it's exploitation. So I won't miss your business. There are all kinds of 'innovations' that don't involve collecting data about me, and the companies creating these kinds of products don't have to care one lick about the GDPR.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Considering the usage of Google in Europe I'd say you're in a small minority. Most people agree that what Google has done is innovation.
- closeparen 9y ago
  HN is most definitely not compliant. Are you happy to see it go?
cm2187 9y ago
To be honest, the Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google of this world aren't the one that have been leaking the most personal data. It's the smaller companies and startups that have been leaking personal data at an alarming rate. What we are beginning to see now is the regulatory backlash. Regulations are inconvenient, expensive, create barriers to entry (ask bankers!). But the current pace of gathering then leaking of personal information is just unacceptable and unsustainable. Between the two evils, I am not sure I prefer the current statu quo.
- M2Ys4U 9y ago
  Leaking PII isn't the main issue. Processing of PII is. And Facebook et. al. do a lot of that.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    Yeah but they have the resources to deal with these regulations. The parent comment complains about smaller companies having to deal with these regulations.
    - M2Ys4U 9y ago
      These regulations aren't all that onerous, to be honest. Take a look at this link, for example: https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/08/25/gdpr-is-an-evolution-in-data-protection-not-a-burdensome-revolution/ https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/08/25/gdpr-is-an-evolution-i...
      - cm2187 9y ago
        I completely agree. This is only hurting companies which business is to track their users. Which is why I personally have very little sympathy for people complaining that we're moving their cheese.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    Really? I find this fascinating, because people who have had PII leaked have been doxxed, physically threatened, had money stolen, their identity cloned. Lots of real world harm. Leaked info to governments, especially in places in the world where it can mean imprisonment or death is a real issue. Processing of PII may gave people the willies, but being annoyed by targeted ads seems like #firstworldproblems compared to people who've experienced real attacks via PII leaks. It also creates opportunity costs for improving human society. How many human diseases could be cured if "processed" PII health data, anonymized statistics or case studies, were used by researchers freely? How much additional burden does it incur if each time this data is transferred to a sub-processor everyone must re-opt-in again? Would a world of perfect privacy be a utopia, or a nightmare?

usgroup 9y ago

This is about ethics primarily. If you don't care about ethics then expect an unethical economy.

bflesch 9y ago
I don't think it is about ethics, it is about control. We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US, and now they try to solve the problem by pulling down the US on our level (at least the parts concerning the EU market). I think this is the wrong approach, EU should try to make it easier for European businesses to compete with US-based ones. But in the end we have another layer of bureaucracy on top of all the things a US startup has to worry about, and those mostly non-technical/non-innovative people want to be a part of the picture.
- kartan 9y ago
  > We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US Tracking people around the internet. To follow them everywhere they go and save their personal information, their political ideology, etc. It is not innovation, that's just stepping over personal rights. > I don't think it is about ethics, it is about control. Yes. About giving back control of citizen privacy to the citizens themselves. It is not the government that decides who can own your data or when to delete it. It is European citizens that decide individually who should have their data and whom can not. > EU should try to make it easier for European businesses to compete with US-based ones. If you give away freedom for economic gain, you don't deserve either one.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    >If you give away freedom for economic gain, you don't deserve either one. What gives you the right to deny others the right to trade their personal information as they see fit?
    - claudius 9y ago
      Well they can of course trade it as they see fit, just opt-in to those things and be happy? What gives you the right to force me to trade in my personal information?
    - majewsky 9y ago
      You make it sound as though the majority of Facebook users were making a conscious decision to trade personal information, whereas the usual thought process is "it's free! and everyone's doing it!".
      - logicchains 9y ago
        Most people simply don't care. It constantly surprises me how paranoid people in the technology community are about their social interaction and browsing data.
        the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
        Normal people absolutely care. They however do not have the tools or know how to. Just look at how many people were behind the facebook lawsuits in Europe to see that those are not developers.
    - ionised 9y ago
      New laws. What gives you the right to decide that corporations are free to use my personal information for whatever they please?
- discreteevent 9y ago
  > unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US Well the EU seem to think that not all of this innovation is good innovation and the law specifically targets this.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >We as European businessmen were and still are unable to generate the same kind of innovation as the US I don't want US innovation. Thanks for the offer.
  - wolco 9y ago
    Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Many of those innovations are based on data collection and using that to make customer segments to sell targeted ads. Without that model you may be asked to pay a few dollars or see additional ads that are more likely to be less interesting.
    - Sir_Substance 9y ago
      >Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Like the fucking plague. You should too.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? Plenty of us do.
      - pmontra 9y ago
        I'm afraid it's a small "plenty" but as a European data point I'm using an Android phone right now. I'm not logged in any Google service with the exception of Google Play. My mail is not on Gmail. I'm not logged in Facebook too and I don't have their app. However I do have their Pages and Messenger apps because of work. Maybe I could ditch Messenger because almost nobody I know uses it. Everybody is on WhatsApp (another Facebook property) and a few people are on Telegram (developers). Could I do without WhatsApp? Maybe but it would be hard. I'm almost not using Facebook anymore because it's became so boring after 10 years of the same stuff.
    - tormeh 9y ago
      >Does that mean you avoid services like facebook or google? No. Can't. I can't do my job without Google and my social life wouldn't survive without Facebook (messenger, groups, events). Using these services is not voluntary at this point.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

> I see this as yet another tax on (European) startups who have to invest even more resources into regulatory compliance. This also affects American companies and the degree it affects you primarily depends on how much of your business model was depending on you doing nefarious things with customer data.

bflesch 9y ago
Of course this affects american companies, as the whole thing is primarily designed as a weapon for the EU against US dominance in the consumer space. The big problem for the EU is that consumers actually choose the best product in a free market (the internet of free services), and they overwhelmingly decided to use the US-based options. All the framing as "nefarious" is propaganda, consumers choose freely the option they value the most. If someone else comes along providing more value than google or facebook everyone would switch in an instant.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  I suppose we fundamentally disagree on a few things here so I won't go into a discussion about the motivation of this law (which I as a EU citizen support). I do however want to leave a note on this quote here: > All the framing as "nefarious" is propaganda, consumers choose freely the option they value the most. Customers cannot choose freely. I'm a customer and I cannot chose certain products because they do not exist. Companies I never engage with are tracking my activities through tracking pixels and other things and because I never establish a business relationship with them, I cannot avoid that. This bill now forces a company I might do business with not do business with companies that do not permit me to get rid of my data. I think this a good development because it finally makes certain backroom deals visible.
  - bflesch 9y ago
    > Companies I never engage with are tracking my activities through tracking pixels and other things and because I never establish a business relationship with them, I cannot avoid that. You can easily avoid being tracked by using an adblocker. Other websites only track you because they are business partners of the tracking companies, which provide a lot of value in terms of analytics for the business - free of charge. > I think this a good development because it finally makes certain backroom deals visible. As a German, I'd like to have more transparency into the backroom deals that are done in Berlin and Brussels. But this won't happen unfortunately, and they'll try to regulate IT to death to the benefit of local corporations who failed again and again providing the consumer with as valuable producs as their US counterparts.

Nullabillity 9y ago

> as those players can easily shell out another $10M here and there to be compliant with this regulatory monster. Sounds like you missed the part where the fines are based on a percentage of your global revenue.

yohui 9y ago
Parent comment is talking about the cost of compliance, not fines for non-compliance.
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  True, whoops.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

I'm not sure "transparency" means what you think it means. Transparency is when powerful entities (companies, governmental bodies, elected officials…) disclose stuff about themselves. Allowing a business as big as Google or Facebook to use all their user's data as they see fit is not transparency, it's mass surveillance.

pascalxus 9y ago

It's true. GOOG/FB have the economies of scale to deal with this. Start ups don't. This will hurt start ups more than it does GOOG/FB.

M2Ys4U 9y ago
It's not hard to comply. Don't collect data you don't need. Don't collect data you don't have explicit consent (or a legitimate need) for. Don't use data collected for one purpose for another purpose. That'll get you almost all of the way to complying.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
hohenheim 9y ago
If the start-up is to monetize due to lack of privacy laws, then this regulation is specifically meant to prevent such companies. If they are the middle man with no dependence on private information, then yes it will cost them to be compliant but it won't break their business model.

AndyMcConachie 9y ago

As an EU citizen I don't really care about a definition of innovation that involves monetizing my data against my will or knowledge. That's not innovation it's exploitation. So I won't miss your business. There are all kinds of 'innovations' that don't involve collecting data about me, and the companies creating these kinds of products don't have to care one lick about the GDPR.

dingo_bat 9y ago
Considering the usage of Google in Europe I'd say you're in a small minority. Most people agree that what Google has done is innovation.
closeparen 9y ago
HN is most definitely not compliant. Are you happy to see it go?

cm2187 9y ago

To be honest, the Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google of this world aren't the one that have been leaking the most personal data. It's the smaller companies and startups that have been leaking personal data at an alarming rate. What we are beginning to see now is the regulatory backlash. Regulations are inconvenient, expensive, create barriers to entry (ask bankers!). But the current pace of gathering then leaking of personal information is just unacceptable and unsustainable. Between the two evils, I am not sure I prefer the current statu quo.

M2Ys4U 9y ago
Leaking PII isn't the main issue. Processing of PII is. And Facebook et. al. do a lot of that.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Yeah but they have the resources to deal with these regulations. The parent comment complains about smaller companies having to deal with these regulations.
  - M2Ys4U 9y ago
    These regulations aren't all that onerous, to be honest. Take a look at this link, for example: https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/08/25/gdpr-is-an-evolution-in-data-protection-not-a-burdensome-revolution/ https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2017/08/25/gdpr-is-an-evolution-i...
    - cm2187 9y ago
      I completely agree. This is only hurting companies which business is to track their users. Which is why I personally have very little sympathy for people complaining that we're moving their cheese.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  Really? I find this fascinating, because people who have had PII leaked have been doxxed, physically threatened, had money stolen, their identity cloned. Lots of real world harm. Leaked info to governments, especially in places in the world where it can mean imprisonment or death is a real issue. Processing of PII may gave people the willies, but being annoyed by targeted ads seems like #firstworldproblems compared to people who've experienced real attacks via PII leaks. It also creates opportunity costs for improving human society. How many human diseases could be cured if "processed" PII health data, anonymized statistics or case studies, were used by researchers freely? How much additional burden does it incur if each time this data is transferred to a sub-processor everyone must re-opt-in again? Would a world of perfect privacy be a utopia, or a nightmare?