4 ms·

Let's try another formulation. Valuable, dear, beloved users for which the business has boundless sympathy, empathy, and compassion are now awkwardly the sourc

by Kalium 8y ago

Let's try another formulation. Valuable, dear, beloved users for which the business has boundless sympathy, empathy, and compassion are now awkwardly the source of compliance concerns for which the costs outstrip the reasonably expected revenues enabled by compliance. While compassion is unlimited, it is possible the budgets and time may not be. Better?

jacquesm 8y ago
Much better. But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could?
- Kalium 8y ago
  > Much better. Is it? It's a lot of bloviating about love and kindness and positivity that dances around the point a lot. It implies, instead of being explicit. It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely. It's poor communication. For the same reasons, it's great PR material. > But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. I imagine that for a lot of really small shops, what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years. > Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could? Maybe! Depends on the company, I should think. In some cases, I'm completely certain that you're absolutely right and they've been knowingly breaking the law for years because they can and there were no consequences. For others, it's possible that the situation may be more subtle. The costs in time and money and opportunity costs to determine how compliant they are or need to be might be daunting or dwarf any reasonable forecast of revenue from EU users. It's possible that not all scenarios might not be quite as simple as having nothing to fear so long as you are doing nothing wrong.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years. That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. That the law got ignored we can agree on.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct! Please accept my deepest apologies for being unclear. Until May 25, GDRP which has been law for years did not take full effect. It's possible that some people made choices based around which laws are in full effect, rather than what is law, for reasons that might at times be other than negligence or malice. Again, please accept my apologies for being unclear. Please let me know if there's anything else I can clarify!
  - jilnji 8y ago
    > It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely. And your point is? Customers appreciate when you consider their feelings. Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > And your point is? Please accept my apologies. I was under the impression that we were collectively discussing an issue of substance and import to us, rather than authoring customer-focused communications. It's my opinion that the writing style appropriate for being maximally nice to customers is inefficient, time-consuming, inexact, and wasteful in other contexts. I'm sorry if I failed you by being insufficiently clear previously. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for this egregious oversight. > Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too. You're right! You are without question correct that kind words should be followed with kind actions. Yet, it might be worth mentioning that kind actions can have costs measured in time, funds, resources, and opportunity costs. It's possible that in some incredibly unfortunate scenarios, this might result in actions being considered that some might see or choose to characterize as being perhaps a bit less kind than they could be. You're still right, of course. Kind actions should follow kind words.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could? You keep repeating this on various threads, but it's not a good argument. It's obvious: for companies that are now blocking EU users, they weren't in compliance or blocking before because the law wasn't being enforced. Hence the cost / benefit tradeoff was different. Now that possible enforcement is on the table, the calculation has changed. It's pretty simple. For companies who were ignoring before and ignoring now, nothing has changed. They are either taking a huge risk or are correct in assuming that there's no enforcement mechanism, so they don't need to worry about it.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > You keep repeating this on various threads, but it's not a good argument. It's an excellent argument. That you don't agree with it is obvious but whether or not a law is enforced or not does not change the fact that it is the law. Those companies that have decided to block EU users as a rule have done fuck all in the last two years and now, rather belatedly, have realized that in fact they are subject to the law rather than that they can afford to ignore it. > They are either taking a huge risk or are correct in assuming that there's no enforcement mechanism, so they don't need to worry about it. I sincerely hope that they will swap positions after the first few fines have been dealt out.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      That you don't agree with it is obvious but whether or not a law is enforced or not does not change the fact that it is the law. And something being "the law" doesn't actually mean anything. If not enforced, laws are just words. So these companies who are now blocking did the actually rational thing, which is ignore the law right up until it matters. No fines are going to hit these companies that have no EU presence. That's just scaremongering. And for the ones that do, I guess we'll see. Blocking the EU market seems pretty damn fair to me. I don't understand why the EU thinks it can force a business outside of the EU to deal with their citizens if it doesn't want to?
maxxxxx 8y ago
"for which the costs outstrip the reasonably expected revenues enabled by compliance" The GDPR is not about revenue but about privacy. It's not meant to be cost neutral. Bank robbers could also quote you to complain about the burden of anti-robbery laws.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You're absolutely right! GDPR is in no way, shape, form, or manner meant to be cost-neutral. Your point about bank robbers is well-taken. However, is it possible that in a context where companies are weighing the cost of GDPR compliance against the benefits of GDPR compliance (i.e., keeping their EU business) some might come down on the side of jettisoning the EU business? They might even opt to do it by using a tool, like Cloudflare Workers, that they can convince to block everyone in the EU. You would be absolutely, completely, 100% right to consider this fully in line with the intentions of GDPR. Protect privacy or GTFO, right?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    If companies find it too onerous to do business in the EU I am sure others will happily fill that gap, so I am not worried. A lot of polluters probably also went out of business once environmental regulations got tightened.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're right! I'm also sure others will happily try! With that said, it's possible that a fragmented market with fewer legal business models may not be as conducive an environment to all possible businesses. It's even possible that as a result, not all gaps will get filled.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Personally I think it's healthier to have a fragmented market. Maybe it's not as efficient but fragmentation makes it more possible for smaller companies to find a niche. Otherwise big companies like Amazon, Facebook and others monopolize business world wide. Different legal models also provide grounds for experimentation. Who knows what works better in the long run? Wild West or regulation like GDPR? We don't know.

by Kalium 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Much better. But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could?

Kalium 8y ago
> Much better. Is it? It's a lot of bloviating about love and kindness and positivity that dances around the point a lot. It implies, instead of being explicit. It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely. It's poor communication. For the same reasons, it's great PR material. > But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. I imagine that for a lot of really small shops, what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years. > Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could? Maybe! Depends on the company, I should think. In some cases, I'm completely certain that you're absolutely right and they've been knowingly breaking the law for years because they can and there were no consequences. For others, it's possible that the situation may be more subtle. The costs in time and money and opportunity costs to determine how compliant they are or need to be might be daunting or dwarf any reasonable forecast of revenue from EU users. It's possible that not all scenarios might not be quite as simple as having nothing to fear so long as you are doing nothing wrong.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > what's changed is that GDPR is now law when it wasn't for the past couple of years. That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. That the law got ignored we can agree on.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > That just isn't true, the GDPR has been law for the last two years and before that there was a law with roughly the same (say 80% or so) components. You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct! Please accept my deepest apologies for being unclear. Until May 25, GDRP which has been law for years did not take full effect. It's possible that some people made choices based around which laws are in full effect, rather than what is law, for reasons that might at times be other than negligence or malice. Again, please accept my apologies for being unclear. Please let me know if there's anything else I can clarify!
- jilnji 8y ago
  > It focuses on feelings instead of making a point clearly and concisely. And your point is? Customers appreciate when you consider their feelings. Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > And your point is? Please accept my apologies. I was under the impression that we were collectively discussing an issue of substance and import to us, rather than authoring customer-focused communications. It's my opinion that the writing style appropriate for being maximally nice to customers is inefficient, time-consuming, inexact, and wasteful in other contexts. I'm sorry if I failed you by being insufficiently clear previously. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for this egregious oversight. > Of course, you should back up your kind words with kind actions too. You're right! You are without question correct that kind words should be followed with kind actions. Yet, it might be worth mentioning that kind actions can have costs measured in time, funds, resources, and opportunity costs. It's possible that in some incredibly unfortunate scenarios, this might result in actions being considered that some might see or choose to characterize as being perhaps a bit less kind than they could be. You're still right, of course. Kind actions should follow kind words.
ryanwaggoner 8y ago
But I wonder what changed since last week because those compliance concerns were just as valid last week. Or do you mean to imply the company knowingly broke the law for a couple of years just because they could? You keep repeating this on various threads, but it's not a good argument. It's obvious: for companies that are now blocking EU users, they weren't in compliance or blocking before because the law wasn't being enforced. Hence the cost / benefit tradeoff was different. Now that possible enforcement is on the table, the calculation has changed. It's pretty simple. For companies who were ignoring before and ignoring now, nothing has changed. They are either taking a huge risk or are correct in assuming that there's no enforcement mechanism, so they don't need to worry about it.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > You keep repeating this on various threads, but it's not a good argument. It's an excellent argument. That you don't agree with it is obvious but whether or not a law is enforced or not does not change the fact that it is the law. Those companies that have decided to block EU users as a rule have done fuck all in the last two years and now, rather belatedly, have realized that in fact they are subject to the law rather than that they can afford to ignore it. > They are either taking a huge risk or are correct in assuming that there's no enforcement mechanism, so they don't need to worry about it. I sincerely hope that they will swap positions after the first few fines have been dealt out.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    That you don't agree with it is obvious but whether or not a law is enforced or not does not change the fact that it is the law. And something being "the law" doesn't actually mean anything. If not enforced, laws are just words. So these companies who are now blocking did the actually rational thing, which is ignore the law right up until it matters. No fines are going to hit these companies that have no EU presence. That's just scaremongering. And for the ones that do, I guess we'll see. Blocking the EU market seems pretty damn fair to me. I don't understand why the EU thinks it can force a business outside of the EU to deal with their citizens if it doesn't want to?

maxxxxx 8y ago

"for which the costs outstrip the reasonably expected revenues enabled by compliance" The GDPR is not about revenue but about privacy. It's not meant to be cost neutral. Bank robbers could also quote you to complain about the burden of anti-robbery laws.

Kalium 8y ago
You're absolutely right! GDPR is in no way, shape, form, or manner meant to be cost-neutral. Your point about bank robbers is well-taken. However, is it possible that in a context where companies are weighing the cost of GDPR compliance against the benefits of GDPR compliance (i.e., keeping their EU business) some might come down on the side of jettisoning the EU business? They might even opt to do it by using a tool, like Cloudflare Workers, that they can convince to block everyone in the EU. You would be absolutely, completely, 100% right to consider this fully in line with the intentions of GDPR. Protect privacy or GTFO, right?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  If companies find it too onerous to do business in the EU I am sure others will happily fill that gap, so I am not worried. A lot of polluters probably also went out of business once environmental regulations got tightened.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    You're right! I'm also sure others will happily try! With that said, it's possible that a fragmented market with fewer legal business models may not be as conducive an environment to all possible businesses. It's even possible that as a result, not all gaps will get filled.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Personally I think it's healthier to have a fragmented market. Maybe it's not as efficient but fragmentation makes it more possible for smaller companies to find a niche. Otherwise big companies like Amazon, Facebook and others monopolize business world wide. Different legal models also provide grounds for experimentation. Who knows what works better in the long run? Wild West or regulation like GDPR? We don't know.