4 ms·

How is "my business model depends on it" not a bona fide legitimate purpose for information collection? Nobody is forcing anyone to patronize a business that re

How is "my business model depends on it" not a bona fide legitimate purpose for information collection? Nobody is forcing anyone to patronize a business that relies on data collection for profitability. I'm extremely skeptical of regulation that interferes with consensual deals between economic actors. You want transparency? Fine. But you don't get to randomly outlaw certain entire classes of business.

criddell 9y ago
There are a lot of companies that are collecting data about you and I that we aren't patronizing. For example, even if you don't have an account at Facebook, they have a profile of you. Even if you don't do business with Equifax, they are collecting your data. People want more control over how information about them is used.
russdpale 9y ago
Personally, I am extremely skeptical of entities where the only motivation is pure profit, and I personally would like to organize to protect myself against these entities that don't align with my civic concerns.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> How is "my business model depends on it" not a bona fide legitimate purpose for information collection? Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. > But you don't get to randomly outlaw certain entire classes of business. Why not? Some business models are clearly antisocial and don't deserve to exist. GDPR is only outlawing business models based on large-scale abuse of people's private and identifying information. If you can obtain proper consent from enough percentage of your users, then your business model will be fine. If that's a problem for you, then ask yourself why. I find it funny to see people complaining that their business model will be in trouble under GDPR. GDPR literally only outlaws being a huge asshole (in context of users' data).
- zerostar07 9y ago
  > Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. that doesn't change the fact that the business model depends on that orthogonal action. Is it unlawful for gyms to charge by subscription instead of per-use knowing that most people don't use them? Should the NYTimes be forced to go pay-per article instead of subscription? Should nightclubs not be allowed to overcharge the bottle? > GDPR literally only outlaws being a huge asshole (in context of users' data). It goes beyond that, by forcing you to serve people that don't agree to your business model.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Is it unlawful for gyms to charge by subscription instead of per-use based on the model that most people don't use them? Should the NYTimes be forced to go pay-per article instead of subscription? It isn't, and it shouldn't. Either can choose whatever works for them best. GDPR only outlaws a few particular antisocial behaviours, which makes a particular class of business models illegal or much less profitable. The "but business model!" whining sounds a bit like complaining that you can't make money mugging people, because the government disallows theft and assault. Cry me a river.
    - hsod 9y ago
      I think it's more like if you made an iPhone game and sold it for 99 cents and the government came along and told you you had to give it away for free to people who didn't want to pay.
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    They can charge any subscription or per use fee that they want, but not if the payment is personal data not necessary for the service.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  > Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. That's a very interesting claim. So you're saying it'd be possible to organize fighter jet production as a co-op vegan collective?
birksherty 9y ago
> consensual deals between economic actors For web, most people don't understand the scope of tracking and privacy. None of the people I know understand what these web companies are doing, how they are being tracked and what data companies have about them. Nobody reads the privacy notice in those websites. Even after someone tells them facebook is tracking everything, they don't understand and just ignores it. There are no consensual deals on web. So GDPR is for all of them (and for people who understand and wants protection). Also in America a company is more important than people. That's why there are so much negativity towards GDPR.

criddell 9y ago

There are a lot of companies that are collecting data about you and I that we aren't patronizing. For example, even if you don't have an account at Facebook, they have a profile of you. Even if you don't do business with Equifax, they are collecting your data. People want more control over how information about them is used.

russdpale 9y ago

Personally, I am extremely skeptical of entities where the only motivation is pure profit, and I personally would like to organize to protect myself against these entities that don't align with my civic concerns.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> How is "my business model depends on it" not a bona fide legitimate purpose for information collection? Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. > But you don't get to randomly outlaw certain entire classes of business. Why not? Some business models are clearly antisocial and don't deserve to exist. GDPR is only outlawing business models based on large-scale abuse of people's private and identifying information. If you can obtain proper consent from enough percentage of your users, then your business model will be fine. If that's a problem for you, then ask yourself why. I find it funny to see people complaining that their business model will be in trouble under GDPR. GDPR literally only outlaws being a huge asshole (in context of users' data).

zerostar07 9y ago
> Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. that doesn't change the fact that the business model depends on that orthogonal action. Is it unlawful for gyms to charge by subscription instead of per-use knowing that most people don't use them? Should the NYTimes be forced to go pay-per article instead of subscription? Should nightclubs not be allowed to overcharge the bottle? > GDPR literally only outlaws being a huge asshole (in context of users' data). It goes beyond that, by forcing you to serve people that don't agree to your business model.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Is it unlawful for gyms to charge by subscription instead of per-use based on the model that most people don't use them? Should the NYTimes be forced to go pay-per article instead of subscription? It isn't, and it shouldn't. Either can choose whatever works for them best. GDPR only outlaws a few particular antisocial behaviours, which makes a particular class of business models illegal or much less profitable. The "but business model!" whining sounds a bit like complaining that you can't make money mugging people, because the government disallows theft and assault. Cry me a river.
  - hsod 9y ago
    I think it's more like if you made an iPhone game and sold it for 99 cents and the government came along and told you you had to give it away for free to people who didn't want to pay.
- SahAssar 9y ago
  They can charge any subscription or per use fee that they want, but not if the payment is personal data not necessary for the service.
quotemstr 9y ago
> Business models are arbitrary and orthogonal to services provided. That's a very interesting claim. So you're saying it'd be possible to organize fighter jet production as a co-op vegan collective?

birksherty 9y ago

> consensual deals between economic actors For web, most people don't understand the scope of tracking and privacy. None of the people I know understand what these web companies are doing, how they are being tracked and what data companies have about them. Nobody reads the privacy notice in those websites. Even after someone tells them facebook is tracking everything, they don't understand and just ignores it. There are no consensual deals on web. So GDPR is for all of them (and for people who understand and wants protection). Also in America a company is more important than people. That's why there are so much negativity towards GDPR.