4 ms·

Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing someone to get their money back two years after eating a meal at a restaurant. Given the E

Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing someone to get their money back two years after eating a meal at a restaurant. Given the EU assertion of global jurisdiction, the GDPR seems like a bit of a trade war and it's surprising more commentators aren't treating it as such. The US should be inspired by this and give online retailers the opportunity to collect and remit sales taxes.

tomc1985 8y ago
No it isn't. If your business relationship with the customer ends, so should your data relationship.
- wang_li 8y ago
  Yes it is. The customer paid for their past use of the service with their data. Wanting to take that data away after having used the service is exactly like wanting a refund for a product you consumed.
  - welly 8y ago
    No it isn't.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    Regardless, GDPR requires that you do this. Data's value is massively inflated in the minds of "technologists" and it is time that price came down to reflect the realities that the rest of the world wants. Sincerely hoping that this marks the end of the data gold rush
  - 8note 8y ago
    they aren't getting the service indefinitely, why should you get the data indefinitely?
    - wang_li 8y ago
      When you finish working at the end of the day, do you return your salary? When you leave college do you get your tuition back?
acatton 8y ago
> Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing someone to get their money back two years after eating a meal at a restaurant. I'm sorry the analogy is totally flawed. On one hand you have something consumable: food, on the other side that can be made eternal: data. When making an application that collect data, you just have to make a form/button to give the ability to update/delete data. It's no more different that when you make an adult website, you have to make a page "Are you above 18?" Sometimes, it sounds to me that people on HN don't have a problem with the law X or Y. They rather have a problem with the concept of regulation in general. (See the comments on all the posts about Germany requiring Uber drivers to have a car insurance with a higher liability.) But if you want to give an analogy to normal business, a more suitable one would be: "Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing customers to get their money back on their gift card they purchased 2 years ago" How is that unfair?
- wang_li 8y ago
  >I'm sorry the analogy is totally flawed. On one hand you have something consumable: food, on the other side that can be made eternal: data. You're not understanding the analogy. What does a user get out of using Google's services? They get access to a suite of products (search, email, cloud storage, online productivity apps, videos, and so on) that are maintained by a rather expensive group of employees and run on a rather expensive collection of hardware. When you use those services you pay for them by letting Google collect information about your use of those services. The value you get from those services is often intangible (you watched a cat video or looked through a photo gallery of your sister's new kid), though sometimes monetary (you don't have to pay an ISP for an email address if you use gmail.) When you choose to no longer use the services and demand that Google delete all the data they have gathered are you going to return that intangible value and pay them for the money you saved by using their systems? How would you do return the experience of watching a stupid cat video? It's exactly like eating a meal but insisting the restaurant give up the value, i.e. the money, that they got from you.
  - acatton 8y ago
    You're right. I didn't get the analogy. After your explanation, I now get it. But still, the analogy is flawed then. If I give the restaurant money, the way the use they money afterwards doesn't affect me. They cannot take more money from my bank account or from my pocket. The only thing they can do is invest it and make more money, but it does not affect me. When I give my data, the way they use my data – after I've "eaten there" – can affect my life. They can send me spam, they can put me into database of "people with suspicious behavior", ... The law is more about giving a second chance: I could have given information in the past, and you could have sent me commercial emails in the past. But now I've realized I've made a mistake and I don't want you do that anymore. If you want an analogy to real life: it's more about giving 5 years of jail to a burglar. They committed a mistake, so they have to pay for it, but they should have the right to get out after having paid, and live a normal honest life. How is that unfair?
manigandham 8y ago
The first part doesn't make sense. This is no different than exporting your data if you stop using a piece of software. Giving data back isn't really an issue of contention, nor is privacy in general.

tomc1985 8y ago

No it isn't. If your business relationship with the customer ends, so should your data relationship.

wang_li 8y ago
Yes it is. The customer paid for their past use of the service with their data. Wanting to take that data away after having used the service is exactly like wanting a refund for a product you consumed.
- welly 8y ago
  No it isn't.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  Regardless, GDPR requires that you do this. Data's value is massively inflated in the minds of "technologists" and it is time that price came down to reflect the realities that the rest of the world wants. Sincerely hoping that this marks the end of the data gold rush
- 8note 8y ago
  they aren't getting the service indefinitely, why should you get the data indefinitely?
  - wang_li 8y ago
    When you finish working at the end of the day, do you return your salary? When you leave college do you get your tuition back?

acatton 8y ago

> Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing someone to get their money back two years after eating a meal at a restaurant. I'm sorry the analogy is totally flawed. On one hand you have something consumable: food, on the other side that can be made eternal: data. When making an application that collect data, you just have to make a form/button to give the ability to update/delete data. It's no more different that when you make an adult website, you have to make a page "Are you above 18?" Sometimes, it sounds to me that people on HN don't have a problem with the law X or Y. They rather have a problem with the concept of regulation in general. (See the comments on all the posts about Germany requiring Uber drivers to have a car insurance with a higher liability.) But if you want to give an analogy to normal business, a more suitable one would be: "Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing customers to get their money back on their gift card they purchased 2 years ago" How is that unfair?

wang_li 8y ago
>I'm sorry the analogy is totally flawed. On one hand you have something consumable: food, on the other side that can be made eternal: data. You're not understanding the analogy. What does a user get out of using Google's services? They get access to a suite of products (search, email, cloud storage, online productivity apps, videos, and so on) that are maintained by a rather expensive group of employees and run on a rather expensive collection of hardware. When you use those services you pay for them by letting Google collect information about your use of those services. The value you get from those services is often intangible (you watched a cat video or looked through a photo gallery of your sister's new kid), though sometimes monetary (you don't have to pay an ISP for an email address if you use gmail.) When you choose to no longer use the services and demand that Google delete all the data they have gathered are you going to return that intangible value and pay them for the money you saved by using their systems? How would you do return the experience of watching a stupid cat video? It's exactly like eating a meal but insisting the restaurant give up the value, i.e. the money, that they got from you.
- acatton 8y ago
  You're right. I didn't get the analogy. After your explanation, I now get it. But still, the analogy is flawed then. If I give the restaurant money, the way the use they money afterwards doesn't affect me. They cannot take more money from my bank account or from my pocket. The only thing they can do is invest it and make more money, but it does not affect me. When I give my data, the way they use my data – after I've "eaten there" – can affect my life. They can send me spam, they can put me into database of "people with suspicious behavior", ... The law is more about giving a second chance: I could have given information in the past, and you could have sent me commercial emails in the past. But now I've realized I've made a mistake and I don't want you do that anymore. If you want an analogy to real life: it's more about giving 5 years of jail to a burglar. They committed a mistake, so they have to pay for it, but they should have the right to get out after having paid, and live a normal honest life. How is that unfair?

manigandham 8y ago

The first part doesn't make sense. This is no different than exporting your data if you stop using a piece of software. Giving data back isn't really an issue of contention, nor is privacy in general.