4 ms·
Ask HN: If GDPR compliance was optional, how much would you pay for it?
How much value do end users place on GDPR, or in as much as GDPR provides it, strong privacy controls?
The major parts[1]: consent, data access, rectification of errors, records of data processing, transfers to other processors, erasure.
So, imagine that "GDPR Compliance" was an optional line item that each consumer could decide whether to purchase. What's a service that you're currently paying for (out of your own pocket, not for a business), and how much extra would you pay for a GDPR compliant version of that service?
Another way to think of it, for those using Gmail for personal email: inexpensive email services exist that are already far more privacy-conscious, like FastMail at $30-$50/year. How little would privacy need to cost in order to make it a good value for you?
There's no right answers here, only a hint whether GDPR (or even "privacy" - GDPR is as close to a definition as exists) provides more value to end users than the cost to comply with/deliver it.
[1]: Full text: https://gdpr-info.eu/
- dozzie 9y ago> If GDPR compliance was optional, how much would you pay for it? Another way to think about it: if non-toxic food was optional, how much would you pay for it? And how much would you pay for an access to a judical system? It's not something that you want to have as an option.
- dominotw 9y agoFood and justice are not optional. Using Facebook is optional.
- dozzie 9y agoUsing services in general is de facto mandatory in our society. It's like saying that you don't need a bank account. In theory it could fly, but you'd be excluded from so many things that it's practically impossible. It's even less optional if you are required to use this or that service by your employer (e.g. company-wide Gmail). Going back to the analogy, you don't need to eat in this particular place, but how do you know any one you'd choose does not poison their food? By empty promises alone?
- montrose 9y agoIt's still a valid question though. And I would in fact pay far more for food with less toxins. Whereas I would pay little or nothing for e.g. a GDPR-compliant Twitter. So, interestingly, it's not only a valid question, but one that shows how overdone a comparison to toxic food is.