3 ms·

> The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? That seems like a disingenuous question, the companies that are mainly impac

by sqdbps 9y ago

> The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? That seems like a disingenuous question, the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. It might theoretically apply to all companies but in reality they had a handful of US companies in mind when they wrote theses regulations. As for the impeded innovation question, yes I feel that something is lost when a "cool" and useful feature is prevented from materializing.

ginko 9y ago
Facial tracking isn't "cool" and useful. It's creepy and dangerous and I want to be able to opt out of it.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  I'm in favor of "opt out", I just don't want to eliminate the option.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    The GDPR is in favor of "opt in". It doesn't eliminate the option either, it just makes sure that people are allowed to make informed decisions about their data.
skummetmaelk 9y ago
>the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. Any company who handles personal data is impacted. Facebook and Google are not the only ones which do. European online shops and banks also have to comply. Just because Facebook and Google generate the most press on this issue doesn't mean it is an attack on them in particular. Privacy and data concerns are real societal issues. Tackling them is absolutely necessary and the EU is doing a good job by ruling that we own our data.