3 ms·
> outsource due diligence to the Chinese government That is easily one of the more absurd statements I've seen this month. > Well meaning regulation like thi
by Cacti 8y ago
> outsource due diligence to the Chinese government
That is easily one of the more absurd statements I've seen this month.
> Well meaning regulation like this written by people who have never created anything pratical in their lives
And websites whose customers advertising agencies, and whose product is people, create something? Attempting to track and then monetize everything everyone does online is _creating_ something now?
- closeparen 8y agoFacilitating anything online is in GPDR scope, regardless of whether data monetization or advertising is involved.
- asadjb 8y ago> And websites whose customers advertising agencies, and whose product is people, create something? Attempting to track and then monetize everything everyone does online is _creating_ something now. This is snarky, and intentionally simplifies things down to a dumb level. Here's a list of things that "create something" while relying on an advertisement model for revenue: - Gmail - Facebook - YouTube - StackOverflow - Reddit (to some extent) - Yahoo - Miniclip - Neopets I can find a hundred other examples that are ad-revenue supported by create immense value. It's a difficult balance to strike, and while not perfect, this model has allowed us access to so many good services that would otherwise not exist. Saying that none of them "create something" is just wrong.
- cft 8y agoHow about storing data for spam or DDoS mitigation? You need that data for those filters. But it's in the scope of GDPR. Do you give the spammers that data under SAR requirements, so they can improve? Or do you keep lawyers to justify denials of each request (some of them bogus?) We have done a lot of due diligence on GDRP and we don't "track or monetize" everything. Have you?