9 ms·

Europe is drawing fresh battle lines around the ethics of big data

• exceptione 8y ago
  Slightly on topic, afaik, techcrunch does not adhere to GDPR rules. It forces me to consent to ads and ad tracking while denying me the option to withheld my consent.
  • oh_sigh 8y ago
    Presumably that's because techcrunch doesn't operate in the EU and aren't bound by their regulations.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • craigsmansion 8y ago
      If Techcrunch/Oath is selling/collecting Europeans' data, they are bound by the GDPR. Whether they have enough operations in the EU for the EU to enforce it is another matter.
      • oh_sigh 8y ago
        That is not true at all. I'd encourage you to generally make sure you understand an issue before making pronouncements like this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/04/yes-the-gdpr-will-affect-your-u-s-based-business/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/04/ye... > The organization would have to target a data subject in an EU country. Generic marketing doesn’t count. For example, a Dutch user who Googles and finds an English-language webpage written for U.S. consumers or B2B customers would not be covered under the GDPR. However, if the marketing is in the language of that country and there are references to EU users and customers, then the webpage would be considered targeted marketing and the GDPR will apply. If Techcrunch has offices or business partners in the EU, or targets EU users for example by having a Dutch-based version of their site, then they would need to comply with GDPR. But if they don't have any of that, then they don't need to comply.
    • evgen 8y ago
      Given the number of events Techcrunch sponsors in Europe I find that a hard argument for them to make.
  • johnchristopher 8y ago
    It doesn't force you to anything unless you click OK. And even then you can manage your preferences then with Oath.
    • craigsmansion 8y ago
      It forces you to accept cookies that aren't necessary for the functioning of the site to view the content. According to the GDPR, you can't do that.
      • arcbyte 8y ago
        I don't know where this misconception comes from. Consent is totally different from contract - and both are part of reasons under the GDPR to use private data. True, consent requires necessity, but contract is wide open. When you click accept you aren't consenting, you are (theoretically) forming a contract, not consenting.
        • yorwba 8y ago
          > you are (theoretically) forming a contract, not consenting. How is forming a contract different from consenting? Do you mean to imply that a contract can be formed without consenting to the contract terms? The GDPR does allow processing if "[it] is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract" ( https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ ), but if you want to argue that tracking is necessary to fulfill the contractual obligation to display personalized ads, then first you'd need to get consent for that contract. How to get that consent is outlined in https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/ , which says e.g.: "When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract." So is the contract with TechCrunch about reading articles or about looking at ads? And is the reading of articles conditional on the ads?
  • tyfon 8y ago
    I have avoided them for a few months for this exact reason. I think once the different data authorities kick into action in Europe, many companies will get a nasty surprise.
• surak 8y ago
  Please, stop linking to Techcrunch on HN if you respect privacy. For those in located Europe you have to go through a disrespective process to read a story.
  • mpweiher 8y ago
    With my JS blocker in-place and Reader View, it's actually fine :-)
    • randcraw 8y ago
      That'd be my thought too. Does this difficulty persist when you employ Ublock Origin, Privacy Badger, Ghostery, etc? And a browser that doesn't override the user's wishes, like Firefox or Opera? Without defenses like these, for example, reuters.com is intolerably spammy. But with them it's a delight. Same goes for TechCrunch.
  • hartator 8y ago
    Disrespective process?
    • joering2 8y ago
      Try it through europe vpn. Long list of many pages of third party sharing leeches and dark ui techniques (you only see accept button and have to click on the non underlined normal looking text to see the list of oartners; no “select/deselect all” button means you have to click off each checkbox)
      • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Long list of many pages of third party sharing Aren't they required to do this by European law?
        • achamayou 8y ago
          No, this is the most hostile thing they can get away with, but they are absolutely not required to make it as painful for you as possible.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• mpweiher 8y ago
  And yay to the Europeans! How long has the tech world complained, not entirely earnestly, that the ad-financed, private surveillance internet is broken? What has happened so far? Sometimes a bit of well-placed regulation, which pretty clearly separates the ethical from the unethical in general and understandable terms can go a long way in getting action rather than just hand-wringing. Those unethical things you are doing? Guess what, they're now illegal. So go figure out a different business model. It's not optional.
• sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The basic intent of all of this is fine, however, I don't believe this is going to end up where we want it. Particularly with upcoming legislation regarding 'link taxes' etc. , we're already seeing hints of problematic issues. Moreover, I think the end result will be just problems for Europeans and frankly very little improvement in material identity protection and basically no improvement in terms of quality of life for Europeans. What's needed is another model for all of this, but it's way beyond the EU commission to come up with that, as exemplified by the odd 'link tax' rules, which hopefully will be amended.
• amelius 8y ago
  It's good to keep in mind that: "big data" != "privacy sensitive data" by definition.
  • dcbadacd 8y ago
    I'm a bit confused by your definition. What if the data becomes privacy sensitive after big data methods are applied to it? Does your comment say it isn't possible or it's not big data when that happens?
    • amelius 8y ago
      It's not a definition. I'm sorry, I should have said "per definition" instead of "by definition".
• miki123211 8y ago
  I think all this GDPR bullshit is just nonsense. The more acts like that we get, the worse for real users, and especially developers it will be. Just think about it for a second. Large companies have large departments full of lawyers responsible just for that kind of thing. Yes, they might be resistant to change, but if they're forced to change, they will either change or figure out a way to not change while still staying compliant. Law is usually full of loopholes and the bigger you are, the easier it is for you to abuse them. The more law restricting what tech companies can or can't do we get, the harder it will be to create a startup. Imagine being a twenty-something biologist and creating a startup that's going to sell some medicines you created in the garage because your grandma is sick and she can't afford the ones on the market. The idea just sounds ridiculous. The number of certifications, clinical trials, approvals and other regulatory hurdles you need to overcome is just too high for someone without a full fledged legal department. I think the same thing will happen in tech, eventually. There will be no more startups made by two roommates at college who have just thought about some revolutionary idea. If someone even tries, they will instantly shut him down for not complyying with this or that regulation in some foreign country he hasn't even visited. Wise founders might try to find a lawyer or two and make their startup compliant with one country's laws and then do georestrictions. Big companies, with their legal departments, however, will be able to navigate that tangled mess much more easily. As a result, we will get big companies tracking us anyway and no way for small startups to rival them, much slower progress in countries with overly paranoid privacy regulations, which will cause economic development of such countries to be slower, and a worse quality of life for citizens in general.
  • Bjartr 8y ago
    What I've read on this seems to point to how European laws tend to be enforced to the intent of the law rather than the letter. So it's harder for loopholes to be explored in ways common to US law. Further, I think (though could be getting GDPR and the copyright laws confused) there is a clause that says the law should not be enforced in a way that is onerous to small and medium businesses. Which, again, as I understand EU judges to act, should actually mean it's still easy to start a company, but once you're pulling in sizeable revenue you must invest some of that in ensuring compliance. Take all of this with a huge grain of salt since I learned it from comments on HN. I'd love it if anyone can lend a more experienced take on this to either confirm or definitely what I've said here.
• Jonanin 8y ago
  The EU's war on big companies with big data feels too much like the opposite of "focus on your users instead of your competitors". EU has been quick to throw around a lot of fines and new regulations. But I what I don't see is any European governments or companies offering superior alternatives to customers, or any vision of what superior systems would look like. The EU is too focused on figuring out what's wrong with the technology that was invented 10-15 years ago to be the birth place of the next big alternative.
• csense 8y ago
  What is the mechanics by which GDPR is enforced against companies that are US based? Like, you live in the US, your website is blatantly non-GDPR-compliant, you get a court summons from Europe, and ignore it, and then a bill for a fine, and you ignore that too, what happens? Do they force European ISP's to blackhole traffic to your website's DNS / IP if you don't comply? If you're hosted on AWS, do the European authorities make Amazon an offer they can't refuse: Either Amazon takes down your GDPR-violating site, or every Amazon package everywhere in Europe becomes illegal? Can they force your bank to disgorge the fine directly from your bank account without your consent (e.g. by threatening to cut the bank off from any ability to legally transact with anyone anywhere in Europe)? Can they get an extradition warrant and have US police arrest you and send you to stand trial in Europe? If your company's CEO travels to Europe on vacation, does he risk having European police waiting to handcuff him as soon as he steps off the plane?
  • clubm8 8y ago
    I think you need to have a European office. The issue is that many do - if not to have a legit satellite office, then because they moved their "official" HQs to Ireland to participate in tax shenanigans.
  • groestl 8y ago
    Nothing of that sorts, but: The GDPR applies only to non-EU organizations when they specifically target people in the EU, e.g. local currency payment, shipment to the EU, local support hotline. This usually requires contracting services from EU companies. And while the violating company can ignore the legislation, their service providers might be fully liable for any damage in the chain, caused by gross negligence.