3 ms·

This. Someone needs to teach EU bureaucrats a lesson. A second "blackout day" (similar to what was done to protest SOPA in 2014), but limited to the EU, would b

This. Someone needs to teach EU bureaucrats a lesson. A second "blackout day" (similar to what was done to protest SOPA in 2014), but limited to the EU, would be a nice idea. Things like the cookie nag screens are just absurd. They will unload much more BS if they aren't stopped early on. Honestly, as a US based company with mainly US visitors, i would simply return HTTP 451 to any EU visitors. The risk of being sued for some silly EU law is just not worth it.

Jyaif 8y ago
As a European victim, those cookie screens are simply exhausting. It's pushing us users towards silos like FB/Snapchat/Apple News where we don't get constantly nagged.
- Nadya 8y ago
  >It's pushing us users towards silos like FB/Snapchat/Apple News where we don't get constantly nagged. Some would say that's the point. Not only are they pushing for laws that smaller players will have difficulty following - they're also making it less convenient to try and escape any large, centralized silos.
ashelmire 8y ago
Who's gonna sue you? The EU has no power or jurisdiction over you, you're not required to block access to their citizens.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  In the US, pretty much anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. While a judge may eventually throw out the lawsuit (for various reasons including frivolity, etc.), being sued generally requires the services of a lawyer to at least bring up the motion to toss the suit. Lawyers ain't cheap (at least the kind that are effective). Furthermore, there's the whole watchlist thing - if the EU has decided against you, they can make traveling outside the US very inconvenient.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  That's not true. The GDPR has an incredibly broad territorial scope: 2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: a. the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or b. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. So offering free services to people in the EU is enough to ensnare you. What does it mean to offer? From the official notes: factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.* As for being able to acquire personal jurisdiction over you or your company to actually punish you for not obeying, that is not much of an obstacle either. Do you envisage potentially serving EU customers at some point in the future? (for basically any online company, the answer is yes) Do you use any services, banks, etc. that are located in the EU? (another likely yes). They may not be able to directly fine you today, but they might be able to in the future, or cut you off from European companies. There is a reason why the doctrine of international comity exists. When followed, it limits the extraterritorial application of laws such as to not infringe on the rights of other nations to decide what behavior is acceptable within their own territory. But the EU has decided to not follow it with the GDPR. In fairness, the internet has made it challenging to find the appropriate balance, but the EU is way out of left field here.
  - sparkling 8y ago
    So, a US based firm offering a spanish version of their website has to apply with GDPR because people from Spain could also visit? Whats next? US firms targeting the American-Korean community in the US need to apply with laws made in Northkorea? :)
dominotw 8y ago
Its not "EU bureaucrats" though. You can read any HN thread on GDPR and general consensus here is that it is good for consumer rights and if you are having hard time with it then you were doing something malicious and you should give up your unethical 'business model'. Also, GDPR is not restricted to ' EU users'.
- candiodari 8y ago
  It is sad that in a place with so many developers this would happen. Especially sad to see that attitude prevail even with some developers' comments in there about "now we can't have fora anymore without a large team". I'm sure that's just one of the costs associated with this, and yet it seems to me it's a clear loss. And what do we gain ? > Also, GDPR is not restricted to ' EU users'. I'm sure you can understand why having laws with (even pretend) global reach is a huge, huge problem given the people who make laws. Let's leave the discussion of which countries are or aren't problematic there, but let me just state that the problem is you're unlikely to agree with large dictatorships or religiously run countries' laws. That's why laws shouldn't have global reach. The big problem police has with the internet in general is that it allows for things to be synchronized, and they can't easily block it. That it allows anything from going out with a lot of people, to protests, vandals ... and, yes, terrorists and I'm sure other criminals too to be as organized as the police is. They can't deal with that is the simple explanation. But to totally sacrifice free speech for this is entirely out of proportion. This is not a good way to strike a balance and that's why this law needs to be stopped. Also, the police ... out of the 30+ police services that interpol represents, I assure you, there will be a lot that are outright stupid, yet more that just don't care about the effect of what they do, and one or two that are outright malicious. These people can't be trusted with this power. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge their problem. It definitely exists. But there are better balances to be struck than this. But yes, I see how this is being used against them: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/swedish-prime-minister-livid-after-youths-torch-more-than-100-cars-20180815-p4zxiz.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/swedish-prime-minister-l... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Attacks

Jyaif 8y ago

As a European victim, those cookie screens are simply exhausting. It's pushing us users towards silos like FB/Snapchat/Apple News where we don't get constantly nagged.

Nadya 8y ago
>It's pushing us users towards silos like FB/Snapchat/Apple News where we don't get constantly nagged. Some would say that's the point. Not only are they pushing for laws that smaller players will have difficulty following - they're also making it less convenient to try and escape any large, centralized silos.

ashelmire 8y ago

Who's gonna sue you? The EU has no power or jurisdiction over you, you're not required to block access to their citizens.

drivingmenuts 8y ago
In the US, pretty much anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. While a judge may eventually throw out the lawsuit (for various reasons including frivolity, etc.), being sued generally requires the services of a lawyer to at least bring up the motion to toss the suit. Lawyers ain't cheap (at least the kind that are effective). Furthermore, there's the whole watchlist thing - if the EU has decided against you, they can make traveling outside the US very inconvenient.
marcoperaza 8y ago
That's not true. The GDPR has an incredibly broad territorial scope: 2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: a. the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or b. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. So offering free services to people in the EU is enough to ensnare you. What does it mean to offer? From the official notes: factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in one or more Member States with the possibility of ordering goods and services in that other language, or the mentioning of customers or users who are in the Union, may make it apparent that the controller envisages offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union.* As for being able to acquire personal jurisdiction over you or your company to actually punish you for not obeying, that is not much of an obstacle either. Do you envisage potentially serving EU customers at some point in the future? (for basically any online company, the answer is yes) Do you use any services, banks, etc. that are located in the EU? (another likely yes). They may not be able to directly fine you today, but they might be able to in the future, or cut you off from European companies. There is a reason why the doctrine of international comity exists. When followed, it limits the extraterritorial application of laws such as to not infringe on the rights of other nations to decide what behavior is acceptable within their own territory. But the EU has decided to not follow it with the GDPR. In fairness, the internet has made it challenging to find the appropriate balance, but the EU is way out of left field here.
- sparkling 8y ago
  So, a US based firm offering a spanish version of their website has to apply with GDPR because people from Spain could also visit? Whats next? US firms targeting the American-Korean community in the US need to apply with laws made in Northkorea? :)

dominotw 8y ago

Its not "EU bureaucrats" though. You can read any HN thread on GDPR and general consensus here is that it is good for consumer rights and if you are having hard time with it then you were doing something malicious and you should give up your unethical 'business model'. Also, GDPR is not restricted to ' EU users'.

candiodari 8y ago
It is sad that in a place with so many developers this would happen. Especially sad to see that attitude prevail even with some developers' comments in there about "now we can't have fora anymore without a large team". I'm sure that's just one of the costs associated with this, and yet it seems to me it's a clear loss. And what do we gain ? > Also, GDPR is not restricted to ' EU users'. I'm sure you can understand why having laws with (even pretend) global reach is a huge, huge problem given the people who make laws. Let's leave the discussion of which countries are or aren't problematic there, but let me just state that the problem is you're unlikely to agree with large dictatorships or religiously run countries' laws. That's why laws shouldn't have global reach. The big problem police has with the internet in general is that it allows for things to be synchronized, and they can't easily block it. That it allows anything from going out with a lot of people, to protests, vandals ... and, yes, terrorists and I'm sure other criminals too to be as organized as the police is. They can't deal with that is the simple explanation. But to totally sacrifice free speech for this is entirely out of proportion. This is not a good way to strike a balance and that's why this law needs to be stopped. Also, the police ... out of the 30+ police services that interpol represents, I assure you, there will be a lot that are outright stupid, yet more that just don't care about the effect of what they do, and one or two that are outright malicious. These people can't be trusted with this power. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge their problem. It definitely exists. But there are better balances to be struck than this. But yes, I see how this is being used against them: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/swedish-prime-minister-livid-after-youths-torch-more-than-100-cars-20180815-p4zxiz.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/swedish-prime-minister-l... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings#Attacks