9 ms·

>I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance

>I was thinking about getting in to the car market but all these pesky requirements that I sell a car with airbags and seatbelts and fuel efficiency compliance are just there to protect existing incumbents. I think by going to cars to prove your point proves how ridiculous regulation for websites are. For some reason there exists a group of people that believe that websites like facebook need regulations that are as strict as those required for developing cars. People die from cars that are badly designed. People don't die from facebook (yes I'm sure you can find some contrived example.) Unrelated but something that further adds to the irony of using cars as an example is that companies such as VW haven't even been fined for cheating on their emissions test. I doubt a country like Germany would ever consider allowing the EU to fine 4% of Vws global revenue even though they broke the law in a way that has resulted in people's deaths.

monkeynotes 8y ago
> VW haven't even been fined for cheating on their emissions test. Exec has been fined and sentenced to 7 years[0] VW have been fined $2.8B[1] [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/judge-sentences-volkswagen-executive-to-7-years-in-prison-plus-a-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/judge-sentences-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-largest-fine-u-s-history-volkswagen-n749406 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-larges...
- lajhsdfkl 8y ago
  By the US and 2.8B is a fraction of what they deserved to be fined. All VW execs should be in prison for the rest of their lives for what they have done.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    > All VW execs should be in prison for the rest of their lives for what they have done. You must point to the laws violated. E.g. Schmidt made a false statement to the California Air Resources Board under the Clean Air Act. Trial in the court of opinion and mob lynching is not compatible with the Western tenements of law.
    - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
      >You must point to the laws violated. E.g. Schmidt made a false statement to the California Air Resources Board under the Clean Air Act. >Trial in the court of opinion and mob lynching is not compatible with the Western tenements of law. Stop trying to shift goalposts, my point is that if any company deserved to be fined 4% of global turnover it's VW and they have currently received a total of $0 in fines even though they have probably increased the likelihood of you getting cancer.
      - monkeynotes 8y ago
        I thought we established they received a non-zero dollar fine. Their annual profit is about $13BN, they were fined $2.8BN which is about 22%. I think that along with imprisoning an exec that was complicit in the lie is a significant and reasonable deterrent/punishment. As for VW significantly increasing the likelihood of any given arbitrary citizen getting cancer I'd love to see the numbers on that. Sounds like hyperbole to me[0] [0] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fumes-definitely-cause-cancer-should-we-be-worried/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fu...
  - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
    Is that a bigger offence than „losing over 1400 migrant children” under an official governmental US programme, „some returned to child traffickers”? https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018/05/22/immigration-children-separate-families-lost-kirstjen-nielson/631627002/ https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018...
    - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
      And how is this related?
      - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
        I guess it isn’t. There are laws which US considers to be broken by external entities, yet US introduces a comletely inhumane programme worth of DPRK. Where’s the logic.
        hellowrld2 8y ago
        Can you please go away with your whataboutism?
        rad_gruchalski 8y ago
        Sure. But please remind me, how did we end up with VW case on a GDPR topic in the first place?
        hellowrld2 8y ago
        The original poster believes software should be regulated like cars. I pointed out that the fines for violating gdpr are larger than any fine VW will ever receive from the EU for literally killing people.
tommorris 8y ago
My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies. The fact you think GDPR only applies to websites rather than the huge clusterfuck of personal data loss means you haven't understood the reason behind GDPR. Equifax lost millions and millions of records and have so far faced no meaningful punishment from the UK regulators: as far as I can tell, they've so far made one brief statement on their website, and one tweet. Major ISPs like TalkTalk lost millions of records (and ignored security researchers telling them about gaping security holes) and were given a slap on the wrist - £400,000 by the UK ICO. Mere pennies per user in fines; a drop in the bucket compared to their annual revenue. There is no economic interest to change their behaviour. The negligence of these companies has led to millions of people having their personal and financial data stolen, having to keep eagle-eyed over bank statements and credit cards, having to worry that their transactions (or their travel bookings) might get flagged up as suspicious, that their credit rating gets eaten, and much else besides. If a company you've entrusted your personal data with—not just your tweets or whatever, but sensitive personal data including health data, data about your religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. loses that data, as a UK citizen, you currently have no right to appeal the ICO failing to take action. GDPR/DPA2018 changes that balance. Companies tell consumers "hey, trust us with your personal data". Consumers do in the false belief that there is some protection or basic responsibility taken. When they colossally fail to take the most basic steps to protect consumers from data loss, the status quo was this: nothing happens to them.
- lajhsdfkl 8y ago
  >My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies. We'll see. I have a feeling that European consumers and web companies are in for a world of hurt. >The fact you think GDPR only applies to websites rather than the huge clusterfuck of personal data loss means you haven't understood the reason behind GDPR. I know that GDPR applies to everyone, I think it's pretty obvious it will be selectively enforced since the regulation is too burdensome. Do you think your local mom and pop hair salon that is not in compliance will ever be fined?
forapurpose 8y ago
> People die from cars that are badly designed. People don't die from facebook (yes I'm sure you can find some contrived example.) I think the public, and much of HN, disagrees and is beginning to believe that the lack of privacy is undermining democracy, liberty, and human rights.
- Can_Not 8y ago
  > contrived example There are actually some historic examples. A university once performed scientific research on a minority group. Then the Nazis acquired the list and murdered the participants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwiss... Obviously that's at risk of happening again, but machine learning and AI are risk of learning to be discriminatory by training on data sets resulting from historic and modern discrimination. When applying for jobs, it may be possible to enter somebody's info into a next generation background check software to get a % probability of the candidate voting for a specific political party, and declining to call/interview based on that alone. Even when it's not intentionally discriminatory, this is leading to a future where the teller says "sorry, you were declined. I don't really know why, the computer just made the decision". Where's the accountability? In credit reports, I can at least request my credit report and understand how to improve my score or dispute line items.

monkeynotes 8y ago

> VW haven't even been fined for cheating on their emissions test. Exec has been fined and sentenced to 7 years[0] VW have been fined $2.8B[1] [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/judge-sentences-volkswagen-executive-to-7-years-in-prison-plus-a-fine/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/judge-sentences-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-largest-fine-u-s-history-volkswagen-n749406 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/judge-approves-larges...

lajhsdfkl 8y ago
By the US and 2.8B is a fraction of what they deserved to be fined. All VW execs should be in prison for the rest of their lives for what they have done.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > All VW execs should be in prison for the rest of their lives for what they have done. You must point to the laws violated. E.g. Schmidt made a false statement to the California Air Resources Board under the Clean Air Act. Trial in the court of opinion and mob lynching is not compatible with the Western tenements of law.
  - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
    >You must point to the laws violated. E.g. Schmidt made a false statement to the California Air Resources Board under the Clean Air Act. >Trial in the court of opinion and mob lynching is not compatible with the Western tenements of law. Stop trying to shift goalposts, my point is that if any company deserved to be fined 4% of global turnover it's VW and they have currently received a total of $0 in fines even though they have probably increased the likelihood of you getting cancer.
    - monkeynotes 8y ago
      I thought we established they received a non-zero dollar fine. Their annual profit is about $13BN, they were fined $2.8BN which is about 22%. I think that along with imprisoning an exec that was complicit in the lie is a significant and reasonable deterrent/punishment. As for VW significantly increasing the likelihood of any given arbitrary citizen getting cancer I'd love to see the numbers on that. Sounds like hyperbole to me[0] [0] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fumes-definitely-cause-cancer-should-we-be-worried/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/06/14/diesel-fu...
- rad_gruchalski 8y ago
  Is that a bigger offence than „losing over 1400 migrant children” under an official governmental US programme, „some returned to child traffickers”? https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018/05/22/immigration-children-separate-families-lost-kirstjen-nielson/631627002/ https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018...
  - lajhsdfkl 8y ago
    And how is this related?
    - rad_gruchalski 8y ago
      I guess it isn’t. There are laws which US considers to be broken by external entities, yet US introduces a comletely inhumane programme worth of DPRK. Where’s the logic.
      - hellowrld2 8y ago
        Can you please go away with your whataboutism?
        rad_gruchalski 8y ago
        Sure. But please remind me, how did we end up with VW case on a GDPR topic in the first place?
        hellowrld2 8y ago
        The original poster believes software should be regulated like cars. I pointed out that the fines for violating gdpr are larger than any fine VW will ever receive from the EU for literally killing people.

tommorris 8y ago

My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies. The fact you think GDPR only applies to websites rather than the huge clusterfuck of personal data loss means you haven't understood the reason behind GDPR. Equifax lost millions and millions of records and have so far faced no meaningful punishment from the UK regulators: as far as I can tell, they've so far made one brief statement on their website, and one tweet. Major ISPs like TalkTalk lost millions of records (and ignored security researchers telling them about gaping security holes) and were given a slap on the wrist - £400,000 by the UK ICO. Mere pennies per user in fines; a drop in the bucket compared to their annual revenue. There is no economic interest to change their behaviour. The negligence of these companies has led to millions of people having their personal and financial data stolen, having to keep eagle-eyed over bank statements and credit cards, having to worry that their transactions (or their travel bookings) might get flagged up as suspicious, that their credit rating gets eaten, and much else besides. If a company you've entrusted your personal data with—not just your tweets or whatever, but sensitive personal data including health data, data about your religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. loses that data, as a UK citizen, you currently have no right to appeal the ICO failing to take action. GDPR/DPA2018 changes that balance. Companies tell consumers "hey, trust us with your personal data". Consumers do in the false belief that there is some protection or basic responsibility taken. When they colossally fail to take the most basic steps to protect consumers from data loss, the status quo was this: nothing happens to them.

lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>My comparison is simply to show the standard laissez faire talking point of "oh, regulation exists just to protect incumbent market players" as bullshit: regulations exist to protect consumers from negligence and misbehaviour on the part of the companies. We'll see. I have a feeling that European consumers and web companies are in for a world of hurt. >The fact you think GDPR only applies to websites rather than the huge clusterfuck of personal data loss means you haven't understood the reason behind GDPR. I know that GDPR applies to everyone, I think it's pretty obvious it will be selectively enforced since the regulation is too burdensome. Do you think your local mom and pop hair salon that is not in compliance will ever be fined?

forapurpose 8y ago

> People die from cars that are badly designed. People don't die from facebook (yes I'm sure you can find some contrived example.) I think the public, and much of HN, disagrees and is beginning to believe that the lack of privacy is undermining democracy, liberty, and human rights.

Can_Not 8y ago
> contrived example There are actually some historic examples. A university once performed scientific research on a minority group. Then the Nazis acquired the list and murdered the participants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwiss... Obviously that's at risk of happening again, but machine learning and AI are risk of learning to be discriminatory by training on data sets resulting from historic and modern discrimination. When applying for jobs, it may be possible to enter somebody's info into a next generation background check software to get a % probability of the candidate voting for a specific political party, and declining to call/interview based on that alone. Even when it's not intentionally discriminatory, this is leading to a future where the teller says "sorry, you were declined. I don't really know why, the computer just made the decision". Where's the accountability? In credit reports, I can at least request my credit report and understand how to improve my score or dispute line items.