4 ms·

So many people here compare this to GDPR... I can recommend everyone to just read the EU website on GDPR: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protecti

So many people here compare this to GDPR... I can recommend everyone to just read the EU website on GDPR: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo... they write the official website in understandable language, in plain and simple English, not in weird lawyer talk. They have examples for companies as well. What to do, how to act etc.. Forming your opinion about these laws based on what the big American data companies tell you about it is about the same as asking tobacco companies what they think about health laws. It really isn't that hard to just take 30 minutes and read the website from the EU. Literally every comment here talking about 'stupid old lawmakers that don't understand the internet' has not even read the bloody document. I've seen Youtube comment sectioned that were better informed than HN about this.

ferongr 8y ago
Is the text on that website the legally binding or not? If not then it has no real value.
- apexalpha 8y ago
  "Legally binding" is the wrong phrasing but this can be used to prove what they call Legislative Intent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
- avmich 8y ago
  I doubt that if HN website text isn't legally binding it doesn't have real value.
kodablah 8y ago
I think people compare it to the GDPR based on amount of internet big-brother it imposes and other prior-restraint requirements on internet businesses. Telling someone to compare the wording is unrelated to the general concerns of oversight. The unfortunate part is that these contrarian opinions are assumed to have been formed from big American companies and people who haven't read the documents. You shouldn't so quickly assume ignorance.
- rue 8y ago
  “General concern” isn’t necessarily a valid complaint, or understanding of the situation. The GDPR gives _individuals_ power over their data. It’s not “big government oversight” (whether you think that’s good or bad).

ferongr 8y ago

Is the text on that website the legally binding or not? If not then it has no real value.

apexalpha 8y ago
"Legally binding" is the wrong phrasing but this can be used to prove what they call Legislative Intent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
avmich 8y ago
I doubt that if HN website text isn't legally binding it doesn't have real value.

kodablah 8y ago

I think people compare it to the GDPR based on amount of internet big-brother it imposes and other prior-restraint requirements on internet businesses. Telling someone to compare the wording is unrelated to the general concerns of oversight. The unfortunate part is that these contrarian opinions are assumed to have been formed from big American companies and people who haven't read the documents. You shouldn't so quickly assume ignorance.

rue 8y ago
“General concern” isn’t necessarily a valid complaint, or understanding of the situation. The GDPR gives _individuals_ power over their data. It’s not “big government oversight” (whether you think that’s good or bad).