3 ms·

1) I have not made hundreds of posts about anything recently, much less GDPR 2) I have not made a single "doomsday" post about GDPR. I am realistic about its

1) I have not made hundreds of posts about anything recently, much less GDPR 2) I have not made a single "doomsday" post about GDPR. I am realistic about its consequences, which happen to be negative for the most part. 3) There are many, many people on HN that invest in various things, and I have not once seen a financial disclosure about anything, even from incredibly high profile individuals on here that are known to be investors in or associated with the things they are talking about.

distances 8y ago
You are one of the most vocal anti-GDPR commenters in HN. I'm not going to count your comments of course, but for each GDPR related topic in the last weeks (which means close to daily), I invariably encounter a discussion where you are warning of the threats and unknowns GDPR poses to companies. It's good to have multiple viewpoints of course, but I was a bit surprised by your commitment to anti-GDPR commenting. It's as if the previous discussions accounted for nothing, and it all has to be hashed out again. I would for sure classify your viewpoint as "doomsday" (or FUD), but I have to admit I'm probably biased by my opinion: I legitimately feel GDPR is the best thing to happen to not only privacy, but Internet in general in the last decade.
- downandout 8y ago
  The problem over the last few weeks is that people kept repeating the same falsehoods about GDPR over and over again. So the same correct information needed to be posted in response. In every one of these threads, for example, somebody posts about how regulators must issue warnings and that companies must be given a chance to correct any problems well before they are issued a fine. This is patently false, and it needed to be corrected wherever I saw it posted. Everyone should have a chance to learn accurate facts about this nightmarish regulation, especially here on HN where we have many tech entrepreneurs. Most people don’t see every post on GDPR. For the record, I just searched for GDPR stories on here and it turns out I have commented on only a small percentage of the GDPR threads that have been submitted.
  - hypertextcoffee 8y ago
    I guess the UK ICO has a different (read: the correct) view: ""When we do need to apply a sanction, fines will not always be the most appropriate or effective choice," Denham said. "Compulsory data protection audits, warnings, reprimands, and enforcement notices are all important enforcement tools. The ICO can even stop an organisation processing data." "None of these will require an organisation to write a cheque to the Treasury, but they will have a significant impact on their reputation and, ultimately, their bottom line," she said." https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/april/gdpr-uk-watchdog-promises-enforcement/ https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/april/gdpr-uk-watch... This is stuff the ICO has been doing for decades anyway, because they've always had the power. Remember when they got a warrant to search the London Office of Cambridge Analytica? That was pre-GDPR. If you think you know more than the UK Information Commissioner's Office about GDPR compliance, you're delusional.

distances 8y ago

You are one of the most vocal anti-GDPR commenters in HN. I'm not going to count your comments of course, but for each GDPR related topic in the last weeks (which means close to daily), I invariably encounter a discussion where you are warning of the threats and unknowns GDPR poses to companies. It's good to have multiple viewpoints of course, but I was a bit surprised by your commitment to anti-GDPR commenting. It's as if the previous discussions accounted for nothing, and it all has to be hashed out again. I would for sure classify your viewpoint as "doomsday" (or FUD), but I have to admit I'm probably biased by my opinion: I legitimately feel GDPR is the best thing to happen to not only privacy, but Internet in general in the last decade.

downandout 8y ago
The problem over the last few weeks is that people kept repeating the same falsehoods about GDPR over and over again. So the same correct information needed to be posted in response. In every one of these threads, for example, somebody posts about how regulators must issue warnings and that companies must be given a chance to correct any problems well before they are issued a fine. This is patently false, and it needed to be corrected wherever I saw it posted. Everyone should have a chance to learn accurate facts about this nightmarish regulation, especially here on HN where we have many tech entrepreneurs. Most people don’t see every post on GDPR. For the record, I just searched for GDPR stories on here and it turns out I have commented on only a small percentage of the GDPR threads that have been submitted.
- hypertextcoffee 8y ago
  I guess the UK ICO has a different (read: the correct) view: ""When we do need to apply a sanction, fines will not always be the most appropriate or effective choice," Denham said. "Compulsory data protection audits, warnings, reprimands, and enforcement notices are all important enforcement tools. The ICO can even stop an organisation processing data." "None of these will require an organisation to write a cheque to the Treasury, but they will have a significant impact on their reputation and, ultimately, their bottom line," she said." https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/april/gdpr-uk-watchdog-promises-enforcement/ https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/april/gdpr-uk-watch... This is stuff the ICO has been doing for decades anyway, because they've always had the power. Remember when they got a warrant to search the London Office of Cambridge Analytica? That was pre-GDPR. If you think you know more than the UK Information Commissioner's Office about GDPR compliance, you're delusional.