3 ms·

Are you implying that free services like Facebook should be exempt from privacy laws like GDPR?

merb 8y ago
Well if you know that Facebook is bad, why did people even register in the first place? Or put their whole life onto it? It's ok if the privacy law only gone against stuff like analytics or horrible facebook buttons that even collected stuffs from people who clearly weren't users. i.e. tracking especially tracking outside their "domain" however GDPR goes against all and anything. I mean if I go to a supermarkt I can't just tell the supermarkt owner to shut down all his cameras until I leave the store, he would basically just kick me off his market (which actually is his right in the EU). However the EU somehow made a solution that actually even goes against their own market principles just to have extreme amount of Privacy in the internet (only in the internet, their own institutions can still collect data, i.e. in germany the ard has tons of data about everybody) and this is my problem with the GDPR, it's a law from people who actually just want to hurt the big us internet companies. The law also was made by a lot of people without any clear technical background (there were some, but they were a minority)
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  I never registered on facebook because I knew. People who don't know or don't care is different, then there are other psychology explanation and network effect. Your example is deeply misrepresenting the GDPR, seems like FUD to me. GDPR applies outside the internet, GDPR is very limited in scope as it kept the "legitimate interests" exemption from the 1995 directive. Can you substantiate your claim that GDPR was made by people who do not understand what they do ?
- germanier 8y ago
  > in germany the ard has tons of data about everybody Your name, address, move-in date, and whether you paid them. Additionally – if you don't to pay twice – who you live with. Am I missing anything? In any case, they are still bound by the same GDPR as we all are. (A small nitpick: The ARD does not hold any data but their members do.)
- DanBC 8y ago
  GDPR isn't limited to the Internet. It includes most automated processing. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ > This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
notacoward 8y ago
Not at all. If you don't pay me, you're a guest, not a customer. Should guests have rights too? Of course! But guest rights are very different than customer rights. Hosts should be held to a certain standard, and if they fail to meet that standard then they should expect to hear from regulators. What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, creating a potentially infinite burden and liability. It's actually an approach I usually think of as typically American, usually coming from the "don't need regulators because everything can be a tort" libertarians. For it to come from Europe is almost ironic. In any case it's the wrong way to address the problem, and its ill effects are seen in cases like this. It's actually easier for "free services like Facebook" to comply because they can hire full-time compliance staff. The worst effects fall on smaller sites and individuals, making them less able to compete - individually or collectively - with the entrenched big sites. Some have even painted it as a form of regulatory capture, though I think that's a bit of a stretch.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, No, it really doesn't. In Europe action for civil torts is limited to what you've actually lost. There are no punitive civil claims. Courts are a method to get back to how you were, they're not a route to betterment. And GDPR is not enforced by each victim of a breach taking civil action through the courts, but by victims reporting to the regulator and allowing the regulator to take action. The reason people in Europe seem so blasé about this is because we've had decades of experience with regulation, and we know that they don't have many teeth, and tend not to use the teeth they do have. GDPR isn't changing this.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    No, it doesn't create a new tort, but that's why I said mini lawsuit. The mandatory response and per-instance fines create the same sort of burden, even if they're administered through a body other than the courts. In some ways it would almost be better if it were through the courts, because at least there are established rules about evidence, nuisance suits, appeals, etc., but that wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.

merb 8y ago

Well if you know that Facebook is bad, why did people even register in the first place? Or put their whole life onto it? It's ok if the privacy law only gone against stuff like analytics or horrible facebook buttons that even collected stuffs from people who clearly weren't users. i.e. tracking especially tracking outside their "domain" however GDPR goes against all and anything. I mean if I go to a supermarkt I can't just tell the supermarkt owner to shut down all his cameras until I leave the store, he would basically just kick me off his market (which actually is his right in the EU). However the EU somehow made a solution that actually even goes against their own market principles just to have extreme amount of Privacy in the internet (only in the internet, their own institutions can still collect data, i.e. in germany the ard has tons of data about everybody) and this is my problem with the GDPR, it's a law from people who actually just want to hurt the big us internet companies. The law also was made by a lot of people without any clear technical background (there were some, but they were a minority)

bigbugbag 8y ago
I never registered on facebook because I knew. People who don't know or don't care is different, then there are other psychology explanation and network effect. Your example is deeply misrepresenting the GDPR, seems like FUD to me. GDPR applies outside the internet, GDPR is very limited in scope as it kept the "legitimate interests" exemption from the 1995 directive. Can you substantiate your claim that GDPR was made by people who do not understand what they do ?
germanier 8y ago
> in germany the ard has tons of data about everybody Your name, address, move-in date, and whether you paid them. Additionally – if you don't to pay twice – who you live with. Am I missing anything? In any case, they are still bound by the same GDPR as we all are. (A small nitpick: The ARD does not hold any data but their members do.)
DanBC 8y ago
GDPR isn't limited to the Internet. It includes most automated processing. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/ > This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.

notacoward 8y ago

Not at all. If you don't pay me, you're a guest, not a customer. Should guests have rights too? Of course! But guest rights are very different than customer rights. Hosts should be held to a certain standard, and if they fail to meet that standard then they should expect to hear from regulators. What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, creating a potentially infinite burden and liability. It's actually an approach I usually think of as typically American, usually coming from the "don't need regulators because everything can be a tort" libertarians. For it to come from Europe is almost ironic. In any case it's the wrong way to address the problem, and its ill effects are seen in cases like this. It's actually easier for "free services like Facebook" to comply because they can hire full-time compliance staff. The worst effects fall on smaller sites and individuals, making them less able to compete - individually or collectively - with the entrenched big sites. Some have even painted it as a form of regulatory capture, though I think that's a bit of a stretch.

DanBC 8y ago
> What makes GDPR noxious is that it turns every individual interaction with the host into its own little mini-lawsuit, No, it really doesn't. In Europe action for civil torts is limited to what you've actually lost. There are no punitive civil claims. Courts are a method to get back to how you were, they're not a route to betterment. And GDPR is not enforced by each victim of a breach taking civil action through the courts, but by victims reporting to the regulator and allowing the regulator to take action. The reason people in Europe seem so blasé about this is because we've had decades of experience with regulation, and we know that they don't have many teeth, and tend not to use the teeth they do have. GDPR isn't changing this.
- notacoward 8y ago
  No, it doesn't create a new tort, but that's why I said mini lawsuit. The mandatory response and per-instance fines create the same sort of burden, even if they're administered through a body other than the courts. In some ways it would almost be better if it were through the courts, because at least there are established rules about evidence, nuisance suits, appeals, etc., but that wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.