5 ms·

Please learn from the experience of dealing with side effects of GDPR in EU first, before trying to push it to the US. The side effects would include: 1) Redu

Please learn from the experience of dealing with side effects of GDPR in EU first, before trying to push it to the US. The side effects would include: 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers. 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

hk__2 8y ago
> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers. That’s not a bad thing. If services that don’t want to protect their users’ privacy can’t operate, that’s a good thing. > 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. How does this have anything to do with GDPR?
- manigandham 8y ago
  Not wanting extra regulation and associated costs does not mean a business intended to not protect their users privacy.
  - kekumu 8y ago
    It's a difference in how much a business values their users' privacy and data. Some value it until they hit XXXXXXXXX amount of extra cost. Some only value it until they hit XXXX amount of extra cost. Most probably only value it as much as they're forced to.
kekumu 8y ago
> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice. It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.
- manigandham 8y ago
  > doesn't count as a real choice. Why not?
  - kekumu 8y ago
    Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely. The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?
    - spookthesunset 8y ago
      > Because consent must be "freely given" But you do have a choice. Don't use the site if you don't consent to its rules. Pretty straightforward choice.
      - takeda 8y ago
        Yes same as you have a choice to live without computers and electricity.
        manigandham 8y ago
        Definitely not the same.
      - kekumu 8y ago
        > Pretty straightforward choice. It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.
        JBSay 8y ago
        The rest of what you wrote is silly. Social media websites are not charities. They don't have to provide you with a service if you are not willing to compensate them with your data.
takeda 8y ago
> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers. because everyone knows that it is better to not make no money at all, than just a slightly less than normal because your ads are not targeted. > 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. Sure, and it is their absolute right to do so, but other people finally have some control over their data, I especially like the fact that finally user can also remove/change the data about them.

hk__2 8y ago

> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers. That’s not a bad thing. If services that don’t want to protect their users’ privacy can’t operate, that’s a good thing. > 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. How does this have anything to do with GDPR?

manigandham 8y ago
Not wanting extra regulation and associated costs does not mean a business intended to not protect their users privacy.
- kekumu 8y ago
  It's a difference in how much a business values their users' privacy and data. Some value it until they hit XXXXXXXXX amount of extra cost. Some only value it until they hit XXXX amount of extra cost. Most probably only value it as much as they're forced to.

kekumu 8y ago

> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice. It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.

manigandham 8y ago
> doesn't count as a real choice. Why not?
- kekumu 8y ago
  Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely. The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    > Because consent must be "freely given" But you do have a choice. Don't use the site if you don't consent to its rules. Pretty straightforward choice.
    - takeda 8y ago
      Yes same as you have a choice to live without computers and electricity.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Definitely not the same.
    - kekumu 8y ago
      > Pretty straightforward choice. It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.
      - JBSay 8y ago
        The rest of what you wrote is silly. Social media websites are not charities. They don't have to provide you with a service if you are not willing to compensate them with your data.

takeda 8y ago

> 1) Reduced number of services available to EU customers. because everyone knows that it is better to not make no money at all, than just a slightly less than normal because your ads are not targeted. > 2) EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway. Sure, and it is their absolute right to do so, but other people finally have some control over their data, I especially like the fact that finally user can also remove/change the data about them.