4 ms·

Competitors would pop up willing to abide by the local laws, and they'll make quiet a bit of money doing it.

kodablah 9y ago
Maybe for large companies serving large-scale needs. But tiny companies w/ not-that-popular services might not have a version in that region (simply not worth the risk) and the citizens lose out. IIRC, there is not a way for a citizen to say "I understand what these companies do and choose to accept it"
- stefano 9y ago
  I'll be pretty happy to "lose out" from being tracked and profiled.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    Right, you speak for yourself (and probably the overwhelming majority). That is my point.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  How do citizens lose out from "don't be tracked"?
  - kodablah 9y ago
    See GP's comment. The lose out on companies that have now chosen not to operate there. Like small companies that don't want to risk being fined €20 million. It's not that they are companies that track you, it's that for many smaller/early companies that don't need EU customers yet, why even risk a mistake? And why risk the amount of that mistake on non-codified promises and subjective enforcement levels (i.e. "we promise only to use that number on the big players)? If I were a VC, I'd tell my companies that didn't need EU customers yet not to sell to them until they are large enough to make sure they won't fall afoul of rules. Regulations almost always benefit the larger companies, even if they are well-intended. Smaller, more nimble companies almost always thrive in more open environments. Citizens of more open and less restriction/regulation encumbered environments often get a larger variety of businesses to use (sometimes to a fault, like tracking).
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Again - what are citizens possibly losing if the company Connor do business without tracking and selling their data? Because that sounds like it’s not those citizens losing - it’s US citizens losing.
      - kodablah 9y ago
        Again - because they aren't tracking and selling their data, they are just managing risk. When doing business, it's not a blind "well, we're doing nothing wrong, we have nothing to worry about", it's "we're doing nothing wrong, but a mistake can bankrupt us in this market that is not required for us to sustain growth." Nobody wants to trust even-handedness application by regulators when it's just a ridiculously high penalty ceiling...well, nobody except those large companies that can absorb it. Citizens lose because they don't get to use products by otherwise well-intentioned companies that are scared of penalties because they are so high and subjectively enforced.
        Azzy 9y ago
        If I'm following your hypothetical situation correctly, you're claiming that an international company would rather not do business than to email the privacy commission for feedback? Which is standard procedure when in doubt...
        kodablah 9y ago
        It's not about doubt of the rules. Though there is extreme subjectivity, that's not my point in these posts. It's about risk mitigation (i.e. the extreme size of the penalties coupled with potential subjective enforcement). I'm not claiming anything about an international company, I am talking about small startups that might not even go completely international at first. Why, if I have all the customers I can handle right now as I grow would I subject myself to more regulations for no reason? It's not that hypothetical as I've been in this with young companies where we were deciding where to launch first (for beta or actual launches). Granted there was nothing then precluding EU users in those times, in fact we preferred it to help w/ i18n vetting. Nowadays, I'd just as soon leave EU countries off of the select box on my signup form, and not worry about GPDR compliance (again, even though I am probably compliant and believe in the spirit of the rules).
peoplewindow 9y ago
This came up a few days ago as well. You can't just abide by these laws because it's so unclear what they mean and say. Notice how the findings are always that a firm didn't do "enough". What is enough? Where in law does it say what enough is? The EU can chase American firms out of the EU. All it means is people will use the American websites without them having any corporate HQs in Europe, or simply be locked out entirely. The local competitors will probably suck - judging from the past attempts to compete.
rmc 9y ago
And the competitor will be able to operate in the USA, whereas FB won't be operating in EU, giving the compeditor an advantage.

Maybe for large companies serving large-scale needs. But tiny companies w/ not-that-popular services might not have a version in that region (simply not worth the risk) and the citizens lose out. IIRC, there is not a way for a citizen to say "I understand what these companies do and choose to accept it"

stefano 9y ago
I'll be pretty happy to "lose out" from being tracked and profiled.
- kodablah 9y ago
  Right, you speak for yourself (and probably the overwhelming majority). That is my point.
abritinthebay 9y ago
How do citizens lose out from "don't be tracked"?
- kodablah 9y ago
  See GP's comment. The lose out on companies that have now chosen not to operate there. Like small companies that don't want to risk being fined €20 million. It's not that they are companies that track you, it's that for many smaller/early companies that don't need EU customers yet, why even risk a mistake? And why risk the amount of that mistake on non-codified promises and subjective enforcement levels (i.e. "we promise only to use that number on the big players)? If I were a VC, I'd tell my companies that didn't need EU customers yet not to sell to them until they are large enough to make sure they won't fall afoul of rules. Regulations almost always benefit the larger companies, even if they are well-intended. Smaller, more nimble companies almost always thrive in more open environments. Citizens of more open and less restriction/regulation encumbered environments often get a larger variety of businesses to use (sometimes to a fault, like tracking).
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Again - what are citizens possibly losing if the company Connor do business without tracking and selling their data? Because that sounds like it’s not those citizens losing - it’s US citizens losing.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      Again - because they aren't tracking and selling their data, they are just managing risk. When doing business, it's not a blind "well, we're doing nothing wrong, we have nothing to worry about", it's "we're doing nothing wrong, but a mistake can bankrupt us in this market that is not required for us to sustain growth." Nobody wants to trust even-handedness application by regulators when it's just a ridiculously high penalty ceiling...well, nobody except those large companies that can absorb it. Citizens lose because they don't get to use products by otherwise well-intentioned companies that are scared of penalties because they are so high and subjectively enforced.
      - Azzy 9y ago
        If I'm following your hypothetical situation correctly, you're claiming that an international company would rather not do business than to email the privacy commission for feedback? Which is standard procedure when in doubt...
        kodablah 9y ago
        It's not about doubt of the rules. Though there is extreme subjectivity, that's not my point in these posts. It's about risk mitigation (i.e. the extreme size of the penalties coupled with potential subjective enforcement). I'm not claiming anything about an international company, I am talking about small startups that might not even go completely international at first. Why, if I have all the customers I can handle right now as I grow would I subject myself to more regulations for no reason? It's not that hypothetical as I've been in this with young companies where we were deciding where to launch first (for beta or actual launches). Granted there was nothing then precluding EU users in those times, in fact we preferred it to help w/ i18n vetting. Nowadays, I'd just as soon leave EU countries off of the select box on my signup form, and not worry about GPDR compliance (again, even though I am probably compliant and believe in the spirit of the rules).

peoplewindow 9y ago

This came up a few days ago as well. You can't just abide by these laws because it's so unclear what they mean and say. Notice how the findings are always that a firm didn't do "enough". What is enough? Where in law does it say what enough is? The EU can chase American firms out of the EU. All it means is people will use the American websites without them having any corporate HQs in Europe, or simply be locked out entirely. The local competitors will probably suck - judging from the past attempts to compete.

rmc 9y ago

And the competitor will be able to operate in the USA, whereas FB won't be operating in EU, giving the compeditor an advantage.