5 ms·

The GDPR is beautiful and an example of the best outcomes democracy can produce. The winners are pretty much everyone. It's sad that the US can't implement pu

The GDPR is beautiful and an example of the best outcomes democracy can produce. The winners are pretty much everyone. It's sad that the US can't implement public policy like this.

saas_co_de 9y ago
It is good that they are protecting their citizens from exploitation by US companies but this is not uncommon that it is easier to regulate a large company that is not your constituent. The EU has not done so well on regulating diesel autos for instance but the US is knocking that one of the park.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  Your comparison is not correct. The practices of FB are not universally considered bad, many people are OK with them. The diesel scandal was a deliberate scheme to cheat everybody - you can't find anyone who considers what they did as good. And the Germans finally started arresting people, too - although the USA gave a good example.
  - petre 9y ago
    The Germans are treating VW just like the US was treating the bankers responsible for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis: with a pat on the back.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    > The practices of FB are not universally considered bad, many people are OK with them Really. Please point me at these people. People that simply "don't care, yolo" do not count. People that have a stake in this because they have an interest in the tech business and fear that any decisions in this matter might negatively impact their business, also do not count (because a very specific yet vocal slice of the tech sector is hardly representative of what is "universally" considered right or wrong). If you think that's too restrictive, and those are the only two groups you can point at, that's okay. I don't really believe those two groups (ignorance and business interest) should be considered representative of what is universally considered right or wrong. If you believe otherwise we'll have to agree to have a different view on ethics (which is a bit of a long discussion I'm not up for right now). Everybody else I hear about this (I said "almost everybody" at first, but I can't think of anyone), DOES think it's bad, but admit that "what can you do, if everyone uses it" (hence the need for EU regulations!!) and because "it's really useful to keep in touch with long-distance friends and family, also to plan events etc", the latter being a reasonable point except there's nothing unique about FB's capability providing this service, and it's really easy enough to do it without violating privacy, if it weren't for FB dominating the social network sphere and forcing the privacy violations on the general public.
dominotw 9y ago
only real freedom is financial. Americans don't usually like to preemptively create rules and regulations that could hinder innovation or hurt businesses. What good is your privacy if you are poor.
- petre 9y ago
  > Americans don't usually like to preemptively create rules and regulations that could hinder innovation What about software patents? Or gene patents for that matter.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  It's pretty good, actually. I prefer being poor in the EU over being poor in the US. Privacy is just one of the many benefits. I've been saying "maybe we have different values" a lot in this thread, but in this case, I suggest you ask poor people in the US what they prefer. Because I get the sense that you're not poor (in a strictly financial sense, that is, because even as a poor EU-citizen I probably get more affordable healthcare :p).
mseebach 9y ago
> The winners are pretty much everyone. You don't know that yet. There is not a great track record anywhere for implementing radical reform without significant unintended consequences. It's totally reasonable to be cautiously optimistic, but when people are only barely not frothing around the mouth at the prospect of landing a punch on Goliath, I'd err on the side of caution, at least until we see how the chips fell.
- chillacy 9y ago
  I'm with this sentiment too. I think there are plenty of laws with good intentions and unforeseen side effects which range from harmful to annoying and inconsequential (Prop 65 warnings, EU cookie law, south korea Internet Explorer mandate). They all seemed good at the time I'm sure. Then the problem with technology laws is we have to live with them far beyond their usefulness since the tech evolves so quickly.
Analemma_ 9y ago
We'll have to wait a while before we know for sure, but one loser might be technology startups, especially European ones. As much talk as there has been about the effects of GDPR on huge companies, the fact is, they're not too concerned: they have enough lawyers to throw at the legal issues and enough engineers to throw at the technical issues. Smaller companies without these resources are going to see their lives get harder. This is a pattern you see across a lot of regulation, even when perfectly well-intentioned: it tends to favor giant companies over smaller ones, because the big ones can devote lots of manpower to the complicated legal and technical challenges the regulation sets up. That might be a worthwhile tradeoff, but it's not the same as saying "the winners are everyone".
- madez 9y ago
  Why do you equate technology startups with startups that finance themselves with private data (mis)use? Instead of taking profit out of private data one has, it's possible to charge for the service. Alternatively, one can use the data to finance the business but also follow the rules and regulations. I don't see the big issue here.
  - sobani 9y ago
    Why do you equate startups with startups that finance themselves with private data? Every piece of regulation is another headache for a business. Take for example the combination of GDPR + backups. If you have enough technical manpower, you can change the backups. If you have enough legal manpower, you can argue that changing those backups counts as 'unreasonable'. If you have neither you have a headache. Don't forget that even usernames and IP addresses are part of the personal data that the GDPR covers. Are you sure those are not present on a harddisk collecting dust somewhere?
    - madez 9y ago
      I see zero chance for the argument that it be unreasonable to adjust backups. Either they are adjusted, or they violate the law, period. Software projects like apache2, nginx, or your favourite website framework should adapt to the GDPR to make it easier for those who use them. How things will turn out is not settled yet. If you are a small company not focused on handling private data, and documentedly continuously work on compliance, then I see little you must fear. Usually, if your business is handling private data of others, then you must simply know exactly what you record where, and what you don't record. That is an essential part of your business.

The GDPR is beautiful and an example of the best outcomes democracy can produce. The winners are pretty much everyone. It's sad that the US can't implement public policy like this.

saas_co_de 9y ago

It is good that they are protecting their citizens from exploitation by US companies but this is not uncommon that it is easier to regulate a large company that is not your constituent. The EU has not done so well on regulating diesel autos for instance but the US is knocking that one of the park.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
Your comparison is not correct. The practices of FB are not universally considered bad, many people are OK with them. The diesel scandal was a deliberate scheme to cheat everybody - you can't find anyone who considers what they did as good. And the Germans finally started arresting people, too - although the USA gave a good example.
- petre 9y ago
  The Germans are treating VW just like the US was treating the bankers responsible for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis: with a pat on the back.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  > The practices of FB are not universally considered bad, many people are OK with them Really. Please point me at these people. People that simply "don't care, yolo" do not count. People that have a stake in this because they have an interest in the tech business and fear that any decisions in this matter might negatively impact their business, also do not count (because a very specific yet vocal slice of the tech sector is hardly representative of what is "universally" considered right or wrong). If you think that's too restrictive, and those are the only two groups you can point at, that's okay. I don't really believe those two groups (ignorance and business interest) should be considered representative of what is universally considered right or wrong. If you believe otherwise we'll have to agree to have a different view on ethics (which is a bit of a long discussion I'm not up for right now). Everybody else I hear about this (I said "almost everybody" at first, but I can't think of anyone), DOES think it's bad, but admit that "what can you do, if everyone uses it" (hence the need for EU regulations!!) and because "it's really useful to keep in touch with long-distance friends and family, also to plan events etc", the latter being a reasonable point except there's nothing unique about FB's capability providing this service, and it's really easy enough to do it without violating privacy, if it weren't for FB dominating the social network sphere and forcing the privacy violations on the general public.

dominotw 9y ago

only real freedom is financial. Americans don't usually like to preemptively create rules and regulations that could hinder innovation or hurt businesses. What good is your privacy if you are poor.

petre 9y ago
> Americans don't usually like to preemptively create rules and regulations that could hinder innovation What about software patents? Or gene patents for that matter.
tripzilch 9y ago
It's pretty good, actually. I prefer being poor in the EU over being poor in the US. Privacy is just one of the many benefits. I've been saying "maybe we have different values" a lot in this thread, but in this case, I suggest you ask poor people in the US what they prefer. Because I get the sense that you're not poor (in a strictly financial sense, that is, because even as a poor EU-citizen I probably get more affordable healthcare :p).

mseebach 9y ago

> The winners are pretty much everyone. You don't know that yet. There is not a great track record anywhere for implementing radical reform without significant unintended consequences. It's totally reasonable to be cautiously optimistic, but when people are only barely not frothing around the mouth at the prospect of landing a punch on Goliath, I'd err on the side of caution, at least until we see how the chips fell.

chillacy 9y ago
I'm with this sentiment too. I think there are plenty of laws with good intentions and unforeseen side effects which range from harmful to annoying and inconsequential (Prop 65 warnings, EU cookie law, south korea Internet Explorer mandate). They all seemed good at the time I'm sure. Then the problem with technology laws is we have to live with them far beyond their usefulness since the tech evolves so quickly.

Analemma_ 9y ago

We'll have to wait a while before we know for sure, but one loser might be technology startups, especially European ones. As much talk as there has been about the effects of GDPR on huge companies, the fact is, they're not too concerned: they have enough lawyers to throw at the legal issues and enough engineers to throw at the technical issues. Smaller companies without these resources are going to see their lives get harder. This is a pattern you see across a lot of regulation, even when perfectly well-intentioned: it tends to favor giant companies over smaller ones, because the big ones can devote lots of manpower to the complicated legal and technical challenges the regulation sets up. That might be a worthwhile tradeoff, but it's not the same as saying "the winners are everyone".

madez 9y ago
Why do you equate technology startups with startups that finance themselves with private data (mis)use? Instead of taking profit out of private data one has, it's possible to charge for the service. Alternatively, one can use the data to finance the business but also follow the rules and regulations. I don't see the big issue here.
- sobani 9y ago
  Why do you equate startups with startups that finance themselves with private data? Every piece of regulation is another headache for a business. Take for example the combination of GDPR + backups. If you have enough technical manpower, you can change the backups. If you have enough legal manpower, you can argue that changing those backups counts as 'unreasonable'. If you have neither you have a headache. Don't forget that even usernames and IP addresses are part of the personal data that the GDPR covers. Are you sure those are not present on a harddisk collecting dust somewhere?
  - madez 9y ago
    I see zero chance for the argument that it be unreasonable to adjust backups. Either they are adjusted, or they violate the law, period. Software projects like apache2, nginx, or your favourite website framework should adapt to the GDPR to make it easier for those who use them. How things will turn out is not settled yet. If you are a small company not focused on handling private data, and documentedly continuously work on compliance, then I see little you must fear. Usually, if your business is handling private data of others, then you must simply know exactly what you record where, and what you don't record. That is an essential part of your business.