6 ms·

They can't, and I would like to know what Europe wants to do about it. Block wayback machine in Europe ? Well, I can still access it with a VPN if I want. Also

They can't, and I would like to know what Europe wants to do about it. Block wayback machine in Europe ? Well, I can still access it with a VPN if I want. Also I want to know what they will do about git and GitHub, or even blockchain project (how you delete something from a blockchain ?) The problem is that GDPR is a stupid legislation written by incompetent people that doesn't understand the subject and imposed with no possibility of choice on member states, like all the regulations from the EU (cookie banner law, for example). And of course GDPR doesn't impact to much the companies that they aim to fight, like Facebook, Google, etc, they have teams of layers payed millions with the sole purpose to find ways to circumvent these regulations, they will just update the terms of services and done, the ones that will be more affected are small companies, startups, personal no project side projects, people that doesn't have money to spend in a layer for a project that doesn't make him any revenue. I think that in Europe it's not more possible to do anything, if you have a good and innovative idea and you want to realize it, better take a flight to the US...

simion314 9y ago
The law is meant to allow me to delete my account from your cool SV startup, and delete meaning actually delete the data and not deactivate the account but continue using or selling my data. The cookie law is a problem because lazy web developers did not implement it right, probably you complain about don't spam me law because it adds a bit of extra work for adding the unsubscribe link and implement the requierements. The laws are done for the good of the society and not for helping a minority to implement some move fast break things, pivot and try again.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  There is big difference in law and regulation between intention and real-world effects. For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence but has the effects of disproportionately encarcerating youth aka "criminals" under the new law for drug consumption, and thus limiting their opportunities in the socio-economic system. If you look into it I think parent is most likely correct with his predictions since they are easily verifiable i.e. big coorps do have massive teams and monetary funds to deal with this legislation, startups and one-man shops do not. This is completely ignoring the deontological question of what should be the case, where I think most would be in agreement.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    big coorps do have massive teams and monetary funds to deal with this legislation, startups and one-man shops do not. That applies to literally every piece of legislation. Yet we don't decide that small restaurants should be exempt from food hygiene laws, or that small construction teams should be exempt from health and safety laws.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Conflating information with feeding someone poison food is so par.
      - matthewmacleod 9y ago
        Your objection is not helpful. Being careless with personal data has harmful consequences. Being careless with food safety has harmful consequences. This is why these things are related.
        walshemj 9y ago
        what personal data is being exposed - the EU isn't keen on anonymous publishing in general eg in the UK any thing published by a political party during elections etc must have both the printers name and their agents - the penalties are quite severe .
        matthewmacleod 9y ago
        I'm really not sure what your point is?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    > For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence That’s not right, is it? Didn’t that Nixon aide admit the drug war was a ruse?[1] 1. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/xd7jkn/a-former-nixon-aide-admitted-the-war-on-drugs-was-designed-to-screw-over-blacks-and-hippies-vgtrn https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/xd7jkn/a-former-nixon-aid...
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  > because lazy web developers did not implement it right No, because the legislators fundamentally misunderstood cookies. Almost any website needs to have some basic tracking of users for fraud detection, bot detection, and yes, basic analytics. Instead of writing out a thoughtful approach, we get a mandatory nag screen right up there with "This product is known to cause cancer in the state of California" on anything sold ever. Users ignore them because the information isn't useful - infinite noise, no signal. This is the opposite of the CAN SPAM law which did have thoughtful requirements - allowing exceptions for account related emails, requiring one-click unsubscribe but also giving systems a period to obey that to handle mail already in transit. GDPR has so far been grossly in the cookie nag screen category, except instead of a tiny bar on visiting a page I get a multi-select based dialog of doom. The answer most companies are going to take is simply not market services to folks in the EU, and those that do will implement annoying nag screens. More rules blindly applied rarely solves problems.
ghostcluster 9y ago
Like many aspects of culture, we may have to rely on pirate outfits to archive and preserve things, until the original parties are no longer interested in fighting about it either way, or a long enough time passes that the archived history increases in value and decreases in personal stakes.
tankenmate 9y ago
What a large number of people fail to realise is that the GDPR applies to any person (natural or legal; a data controller and/or data processor) that holds personal data on a EU citizen or EU resident, regardless of where the data controller (or data processor) is. Obviously EU law can only be enforced in the EU but if you are a business then any funds in the EU that belong to the data controller can be frozen or used to pay court levied fines. Or if an infringing data controller travelled to the EU (or a country with an extradition treaty and similar criminal code) they could potentially be held if a court decides that the behaviour was criminal in nature (some EU jurisdictions are more strict than others). The only way to completely avoid the GDPR is to not hold personal data of EU citizens or EU residents.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Nitpick, but as far as I understand it, it's only EU residents (regardless of their citizenship). The specific text says "data subjects who are in the Union", and citizen never appears in it. (This is for foreign businesses. EU businesses have to apply it to everyone, regardless of their location or citizenship.)
  - merinowool 9y ago
    This means this should be applied to everyone because how do you check that someone is an EU resident? Should websites display a page requesting visitor to upload their residency certificate to be complaint?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      No, it means they have to apply to people connecting from the EU.
      - tankenmate 9y ago
        Have you any document from a data protection authority or lawyer that makes this claim? or even close to it?
matthewmacleod 9y ago
For the love of god, please stop spreading these misinformed views. 1. Nobody in Europe will be blocking anything. 2. The Wayback machine will continue to operate. 3. GDPR is generally pretty well-written legislation, based on extensive experience by privacy regulators across Europe. There are some questions about exactly how the rules will evolve in practice. The thing to bear in mind is that privacy regulators are interested in compliance, not in punishment.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  I don't disagree (nor agree), but trusting Europe to not block anything is wrong. There are EU countries that are right now blocking something. Porn in UK, foreign gambling sites in Czech Republic and of course Telegram in Russia. Edit: I of course know that Russia is not in the EU, lol. Parent said "Europe" and I added Telegram as a fun remark after two serious examples (and there are more). Calm down with the downvotes.
  - Liquid_Fire 9y ago
    Russia is not part of the European Union, and FWIW porn is not blocked in the UK right now.
  - rad_gruchalski 9y ago
    Russia isn't EU.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    Russia is not in the EU. The porn block in the UK (or opt-in block, more like) is a voluntary measure taken by ISP.
    - antihero 9y ago
      There's a new one coming into effect that will force websites to verify people's age using their ID (possibly by an external provider). Or I guess be blocked? Still a fucking stupid idea.
    - 9y ago
raverbashing 9y ago
Sorry, can you explain to me what's stupid about it? Not allowing information about people to be kept ad-infinitum (and sold ad-infinitum)? Allow data breaches caused by sheer incompetence to go unchecked? As much as I worry about its consequences, companies saw it coming.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  The average computer user has difficulty searching their email or scheduling a meeting. You expect them to complete a nag screen about how their personal information is going to be used, with sliders for opt-in versus opt-out, every time they visit a new website? Like the cookie nag, users are going to blindly click through until the confusing nag screen goes away and then be upset that it wasted their time.
dingaling 9y ago
> cookie banner law, for example The 'cookie law' is actually subtle genius. If your site only uses cookies for operational reasons, such as enabling login or maintaining a basket, you don't need to inform the user. So anytime you see a cookie-banner that indicates that the site is doing something additional with cookies. Like tracking for ad-networks. It's a yellow-flag.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  Except every single website just has a banner anyways because it's easier to cover your back then get legal involved every time you tweak something. So it has no meaning at all, in any way, except it's very confusing to some users.

simion314 9y ago

The law is meant to allow me to delete my account from your cool SV startup, and delete meaning actually delete the data and not deactivate the account but continue using or selling my data. The cookie law is a problem because lazy web developers did not implement it right, probably you complain about don't spam me law because it adds a bit of extra work for adding the unsubscribe link and implement the requierements. The laws are done for the good of the society and not for helping a minority to implement some move fast break things, pivot and try again.

jfaucett 9y ago
There is big difference in law and regulation between intention and real-world effects. For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence but has the effects of disproportionately encarcerating youth aka "criminals" under the new law for drug consumption, and thus limiting their opportunities in the socio-economic system. If you look into it I think parent is most likely correct with his predictions since they are easily verifiable i.e. big coorps do have massive teams and monetary funds to deal with this legislation, startups and one-man shops do not. This is completely ignoring the deontological question of what should be the case, where I think most would be in agreement.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  big coorps do have massive teams and monetary funds to deal with this legislation, startups and one-man shops do not. That applies to literally every piece of legislation. Yet we don't decide that small restaurants should be exempt from food hygiene laws, or that small construction teams should be exempt from health and safety laws.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Conflating information with feeding someone poison food is so par.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      Your objection is not helpful. Being careless with personal data has harmful consequences. Being careless with food safety has harmful consequences. This is why these things are related.
      - walshemj 9y ago
        what personal data is being exposed - the EU isn't keen on anonymous publishing in general eg in the UK any thing published by a political party during elections etc must have both the printers name and their agents - the penalties are quite severe .
        matthewmacleod 9y ago
        I'm really not sure what your point is?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  > For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence That’s not right, is it? Didn’t that Nixon aide admit the drug war was a ruse?[1] 1. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/xd7jkn/a-former-nixon-aide-admitted-the-war-on-drugs-was-designed-to-screw-over-blacks-and-hippies-vgtrn https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/xd7jkn/a-former-nixon-aid...
vorpalhex 9y ago
> because lazy web developers did not implement it right No, because the legislators fundamentally misunderstood cookies. Almost any website needs to have some basic tracking of users for fraud detection, bot detection, and yes, basic analytics. Instead of writing out a thoughtful approach, we get a mandatory nag screen right up there with "This product is known to cause cancer in the state of California" on anything sold ever. Users ignore them because the information isn't useful - infinite noise, no signal. This is the opposite of the CAN SPAM law which did have thoughtful requirements - allowing exceptions for account related emails, requiring one-click unsubscribe but also giving systems a period to obey that to handle mail already in transit. GDPR has so far been grossly in the cookie nag screen category, except instead of a tiny bar on visiting a page I get a multi-select based dialog of doom. The answer most companies are going to take is simply not market services to folks in the EU, and those that do will implement annoying nag screens. More rules blindly applied rarely solves problems.

ghostcluster 9y ago

Like many aspects of culture, we may have to rely on pirate outfits to archive and preserve things, until the original parties are no longer interested in fighting about it either way, or a long enough time passes that the archived history increases in value and decreases in personal stakes.

tankenmate 9y ago

What a large number of people fail to realise is that the GDPR applies to any person (natural or legal; a data controller and/or data processor) that holds personal data on a EU citizen or EU resident, regardless of where the data controller (or data processor) is. Obviously EU law can only be enforced in the EU but if you are a business then any funds in the EU that belong to the data controller can be frozen or used to pay court levied fines. Or if an infringing data controller travelled to the EU (or a country with an extradition treaty and similar criminal code) they could potentially be held if a court decides that the behaviour was criminal in nature (some EU jurisdictions are more strict than others). The only way to completely avoid the GDPR is to not hold personal data of EU citizens or EU residents.

icebraining 9y ago
Nitpick, but as far as I understand it, it's only EU residents (regardless of their citizenship). The specific text says "data subjects who are in the Union", and citizen never appears in it. (This is for foreign businesses. EU businesses have to apply it to everyone, regardless of their location or citizenship.)
- merinowool 9y ago
  This means this should be applied to everyone because how do you check that someone is an EU resident? Should websites display a page requesting visitor to upload their residency certificate to be complaint?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    No, it means they have to apply to people connecting from the EU.
    - tankenmate 9y ago
      Have you any document from a data protection authority or lawyer that makes this claim? or even close to it?

matthewmacleod 9y ago

For the love of god, please stop spreading these misinformed views. 1. Nobody in Europe will be blocking anything. 2. The Wayback machine will continue to operate. 3. GDPR is generally pretty well-written legislation, based on extensive experience by privacy regulators across Europe. There are some questions about exactly how the rules will evolve in practice. The thing to bear in mind is that privacy regulators are interested in compliance, not in punishment.

TomMarius 9y ago
I don't disagree (nor agree), but trusting Europe to not block anything is wrong. There are EU countries that are right now blocking something. Porn in UK, foreign gambling sites in Czech Republic and of course Telegram in Russia. Edit: I of course know that Russia is not in the EU, lol. Parent said "Europe" and I added Telegram as a fun remark after two serious examples (and there are more). Calm down with the downvotes.
- Liquid_Fire 9y ago
  Russia is not part of the European Union, and FWIW porn is not blocked in the UK right now.
- rad_gruchalski 9y ago
  Russia isn't EU.
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  Russia is not in the EU. The porn block in the UK (or opt-in block, more like) is a voluntary measure taken by ISP.
  - antihero 9y ago
    There's a new one coming into effect that will force websites to verify people's age using their ID (possibly by an external provider). Or I guess be blocked? Still a fucking stupid idea.
  - 9y ago

raverbashing 9y ago

Sorry, can you explain to me what's stupid about it? Not allowing information about people to be kept ad-infinitum (and sold ad-infinitum)? Allow data breaches caused by sheer incompetence to go unchecked? As much as I worry about its consequences, companies saw it coming.

vorpalhex 9y ago
The average computer user has difficulty searching their email or scheduling a meeting. You expect them to complete a nag screen about how their personal information is going to be used, with sliders for opt-in versus opt-out, every time they visit a new website? Like the cookie nag, users are going to blindly click through until the confusing nag screen goes away and then be upset that it wasted their time.

dingaling 9y ago

> cookie banner law, for example The 'cookie law' is actually subtle genius. If your site only uses cookies for operational reasons, such as enabling login or maintaining a basket, you don't need to inform the user. So anytime you see a cookie-banner that indicates that the site is doing something additional with cookies. Like tracking for ad-networks. It's a yellow-flag.

vorpalhex 9y ago
Except every single website just has a banner anyways because it's easier to cover your back then get legal involved every time you tweak something. So it has no meaning at all, in any way, except it's very confusing to some users.