4 ms·

I agree, this guy seems just to cry with no clear reason whatsoever

HenryBemis 8y ago
The guy apart from crying without ever having read those 80 pages (english language text), doesn't see the big picture. The fact that I can force Facebook, Google, etc. to tell me what they are doing with my data (which I btw had given consent to treat like yesterday's newspaper), and subsequently asking the various Cambridge Analytica's the same question, gives the people a power they never had. Now they do. He wants to leave the game? Feel free! He wants people to be completely powerless? Well.. the kitchen has a door. Feel free to open and leave if it gets too hot.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  This is the classic unintended effect of this kind of regulation. It is harder for small and new companies to comply and crowds them out, further entrenching the power and control of Facebook and Google.
  - CrLf 8y ago
    Actually, it's easier for small and especially new companies to comply. Now, maybe they don't want to, but I don't feel any kind of sympathy for cost cutting on my privacy. What you say it's an unintended side effect, I think is very much intended. That's why the GDPR (if it doesn't fail for other reasons) is a very welcome regulation.
  - wyattpeak 8y ago
    That's true, but frankly I'd rather that the large companies I already deal with be forced to interact on better terms than encourage competition by well-meaning startups. Once upon a time Facebook was the fresh new competition. Once upon a time Google took pains to maintain their "Don't be evil" motto. Everyone starts out starry-eyed, keen to destroy the oppressive incumbent. Very few stay that way.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Dig into the finance compliance fight instead, this is the wrong hill to die on.
  - pwtweet 8y ago
    "It is harder for small and new companies to comply and crowds them out" Show us some proof the GDPR is harder for small and new businesses to comply.
  - pilsetnieks 8y ago
    Yes, regulation changes. Companies that infringe consumer privacy cannot continue business as usual and will be hurt. It's a good thing. McDonald's has it easier to comply with food safety regulations than the cozy mom and pop cafe down the street. Would you be willing to shit your guts out because the ambiance is better there?
    - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
      > McDonald's has it easier to comply with food safety regulations than the cozy mom and pop cafe down the street. Would you be willing to shit your guts out because the ambiance is better there? People cooking for themselves at home aren't required to comply with (the same) food safety regulations. Obviously, you never eat at home or at the home of a friend or relative either, right?
      - pilsetnieks 8y ago
        Similarly how food safety regulations don't apply to people's homes, neither does GDPR. It does not apply to processing personal data for personal usage. People collecting phone numbers in their personal phonebooks aren't required to comply with data security and privacy regulations.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  So the answer is a blanket law that affects all startups big and small. Think Google & Facebook are going to go out of business because of this? No. Think it’s going to be more difficult and risky for startups?
  - rimliu 8y ago
    How it is going to be difficult for startups? They just need to implement proper practices right from the start.
    - rdlecler1 8y ago
      You clearly don’t run a startup that is affected by these rules. Use cookie? Use Google analytics? Have emails and passwords? Send email to your userlist? Now figure out all the legal consent language, and write your own privacy policy that doesn’t get you a $20m fine for running a blog...
- fogzen 8y ago
  How does knowing what data Facebook has on you change anything? You already know the data they have by virtue of the fact that you give it to them. I just don’t get what damage this protects you from?
  - scottie_m 8y ago
    What about the data they have on people without accounts on their service, but who they track across sites and through friends? I can keep myself from having an account, but I can’t stop my family and friends, and I can only do my best to block their trackers. I’d like to know what shadow profiles they have on me, despite the fact that I gave them nothing.
    - fogzen 8y ago
      How does knowing they have shadow profiles (if they do) help you? What damage is that knowledge protecting you from?
      - scottie_m 8y ago
        To be clear before I answer, you’re acknowledging that this isn’t actually just about data willingly given, right? What does it change? Not much just by knowing, but it can allow for change, including exercising a right to delete that data under GDPR. That is a positive change in my opinion.
        fogzen 8y ago
        Having data on someone doesn’t constitute any kind of damage. So I don’t understand how I benefit from this at all. If my data is hacked, I’m not compensated. If my data is misused, I’m not compensated. Nothing has really changed to protect me from actual damages resulting from personal data collection. But apparently lots of small businesses and startups are now hurt, and Facebook is in a stronger position to collect PII.
        8y ago
typicalbender 8y ago
This is an incredibly unfair conclusion. Beyond the time it would make it to make the actual technical changes, he's right in saying that GDPR is written in a very ambiguous way that is going to open up the possibility of litigation that smaller shops will not be equipped to absorb. He's made a calculated decision that for him personally it is not worth the additional legal/financial risk to continue operating the business. GDPR is complicated and we dont know what the enforcement side is going to look like yet.
- dnomad 8y ago
  It's really funny because the blog post is far more ambiguous than the GDPR. He cites no specific provision of the GDPR, he doesn't quote the law, all he does is offer up the big scary $20m number. It's pure FUD. But since we're throwing out wild speculations it's more than possible this guy was doing something really shady. (He admits to affiliate links which are perfectly fine under GDPR). There would definitely be a market for user data even about who's borrowing what, where. Certainly the vast majority of these "the GDPR killed our free business" are precisely these shady businesses who knew they were dead anyways if they had to actually ask their users for consent in plain language.
- salvar 8y ago
  What kind of litigation is made more possible with GDPR?

The guy apart from crying without ever having read those 80 pages (english language text), doesn't see the big picture. The fact that I can force Facebook, Google, etc. to tell me what they are doing with my data (which I btw had given consent to treat like yesterday's newspaper), and subsequently asking the various Cambridge Analytica's the same question, gives the people a power they never had. Now they do. He wants to leave the game? Feel free! He wants people to be completely powerless? Well.. the kitchen has a door. Feel free to open and leave if it gets too hot.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
This is the classic unintended effect of this kind of regulation. It is harder for small and new companies to comply and crowds them out, further entrenching the power and control of Facebook and Google.
- CrLf 8y ago
  Actually, it's easier for small and especially new companies to comply. Now, maybe they don't want to, but I don't feel any kind of sympathy for cost cutting on my privacy. What you say it's an unintended side effect, I think is very much intended. That's why the GDPR (if it doesn't fail for other reasons) is a very welcome regulation.
- wyattpeak 8y ago
  That's true, but frankly I'd rather that the large companies I already deal with be forced to interact on better terms than encourage competition by well-meaning startups. Once upon a time Facebook was the fresh new competition. Once upon a time Google took pains to maintain their "Don't be evil" motto. Everyone starts out starry-eyed, keen to destroy the oppressive incumbent. Very few stay that way.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Dig into the finance compliance fight instead, this is the wrong hill to die on.
- pwtweet 8y ago
  "It is harder for small and new companies to comply and crowds them out" Show us some proof the GDPR is harder for small and new businesses to comply.
- pilsetnieks 8y ago
  Yes, regulation changes. Companies that infringe consumer privacy cannot continue business as usual and will be hurt. It's a good thing. McDonald's has it easier to comply with food safety regulations than the cozy mom and pop cafe down the street. Would you be willing to shit your guts out because the ambiance is better there?
  - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
    > McDonald's has it easier to comply with food safety regulations than the cozy mom and pop cafe down the street. Would you be willing to shit your guts out because the ambiance is better there? People cooking for themselves at home aren't required to comply with (the same) food safety regulations. Obviously, you never eat at home or at the home of a friend or relative either, right?
    - pilsetnieks 8y ago
      Similarly how food safety regulations don't apply to people's homes, neither does GDPR. It does not apply to processing personal data for personal usage. People collecting phone numbers in their personal phonebooks aren't required to comply with data security and privacy regulations.
rdlecler1 8y ago
So the answer is a blanket law that affects all startups big and small. Think Google & Facebook are going to go out of business because of this? No. Think it’s going to be more difficult and risky for startups?
- rimliu 8y ago
  How it is going to be difficult for startups? They just need to implement proper practices right from the start.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    You clearly don’t run a startup that is affected by these rules. Use cookie? Use Google analytics? Have emails and passwords? Send email to your userlist? Now figure out all the legal consent language, and write your own privacy policy that doesn’t get you a $20m fine for running a blog...
fogzen 8y ago
How does knowing what data Facebook has on you change anything? You already know the data they have by virtue of the fact that you give it to them. I just don’t get what damage this protects you from?
- scottie_m 8y ago
  What about the data they have on people without accounts on their service, but who they track across sites and through friends? I can keep myself from having an account, but I can’t stop my family and friends, and I can only do my best to block their trackers. I’d like to know what shadow profiles they have on me, despite the fact that I gave them nothing.
  - fogzen 8y ago
    How does knowing they have shadow profiles (if they do) help you? What damage is that knowledge protecting you from?
    - scottie_m 8y ago
      To be clear before I answer, you’re acknowledging that this isn’t actually just about data willingly given, right? What does it change? Not much just by knowing, but it can allow for change, including exercising a right to delete that data under GDPR. That is a positive change in my opinion.
      - fogzen 8y ago
        Having data on someone doesn’t constitute any kind of damage. So I don’t understand how I benefit from this at all. If my data is hacked, I’m not compensated. If my data is misused, I’m not compensated. Nothing has really changed to protect me from actual damages resulting from personal data collection. But apparently lots of small businesses and startups are now hurt, and Facebook is in a stronger position to collect PII.
        8y ago

typicalbender 8y ago

This is an incredibly unfair conclusion. Beyond the time it would make it to make the actual technical changes, he's right in saying that GDPR is written in a very ambiguous way that is going to open up the possibility of litigation that smaller shops will not be equipped to absorb. He's made a calculated decision that for him personally it is not worth the additional legal/financial risk to continue operating the business. GDPR is complicated and we dont know what the enforcement side is going to look like yet.

dnomad 8y ago
It's really funny because the blog post is far more ambiguous than the GDPR. He cites no specific provision of the GDPR, he doesn't quote the law, all he does is offer up the big scary $20m number. It's pure FUD. But since we're throwing out wild speculations it's more than possible this guy was doing something really shady. (He admits to affiliate links which are perfectly fine under GDPR). There would definitely be a market for user data even about who's borrowing what, where. Certainly the vast majority of these "the GDPR killed our free business" are precisely these shady businesses who knew they were dead anyways if they had to actually ask their users for consent in plain language.
salvar 8y ago
What kind of litigation is made more possible with GDPR?