5 ms·

GDPR absolutely does not do "more harm than good". It extends well, well beyond these dumb cookie warnings. GDPR puts the citizen/customer in power of their ow

GDPR absolutely does not do "more harm than good". It extends well, well beyond these dumb cookie warnings. GDPR puts the citizen/customer in power of their own data. They can ask for their data, they can ask for it to be deleted, they have (however shitty the UX) control over where it goes. They can contact large corporations and request these things and be heard out. I don't know how to explain it any other way: These things are fucking important. As for your organization's GDPR expert who doesn't know anything about anything, this sounds like a "your organization" problem. Replace GDPR with some other acronym such as HIPAA, PCI or even SEO or PHP, it's still your organization's fault for hiring someone who doesn't know their stuff. How is that GDPR's fault? Edit: Yes, keep downvoting facts. GDPR isn't just cookie warnings, how is that controversial?

fixermark 8y ago
> I don't know how to explain it any other way: These things are fucking important. I believe that thought is treated as an axiom by some and an under-tested hypothesis by others.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  That they're not important to everyone doesn't make them unimportant for everyone. It's kinda like other rights such as free speech. Some people don't need/use it. Some specific people might arguably be better off without it. But Everyone needs it; as in, it needs to be available to everyone for it to work.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    It's worth noting that the United States considers a right to keep and bear arms as important as a right to free speech. Internationally, reasonable disagreement on rights seen by some as fundamental is to be expected.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      You make a fair point, but the right to bear arms is mainly controversial for safety reasons. What safety issues are there with providing customers control (or at least visibility) over their data? It's also worth pointing out that the right to bear arms, by its origin, should probably be called the "right to revolt". While this is still a controversial issue for governments (governments don't want revolt), it's less controversial for citizens.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        I think the safety issues with GDPR compliance are minimal (there's a weak argument to be made for inefficiency introduction and contributing to warning blindness, but it is a weak argument). Larger arguments are in the space of tradeoffs. What could companies be doing with the engineering resources devoted to GDPR compliance (including compliance with the consumer-frustrating applications of the law, like the cookie walls)? Since the US doesn't have a GDPR compliance law (and companies in the US only comply when they want to do business in the EU), we'll probably see with time whether the inefficiency introduced is worth the tradeoffs in a highly-competitive world of software services.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        I agree with you that the whole thing is inefficient. I think every GDPR advocate, much like me, will agree that it still needs to be improved and worked on. We're nowhere done.
      - Jach 8y ago
        There is a safety issue in that data previously only visible internally is now also exposed to the customer/user and any unauthorized person successfully pretending to be them. The problem of "account compromised" now becomes a bigger (potentially much bigger) problem of "account compromised and juicy data is exfiltrated under a GDPR data dump request (and maybe followed by a request for deletion right after maybe making it so that the authorized user can't even know what was taken)".
duxup 8y ago
I like the spirit of GDPR. I think it is important. It also doesn't matter if people aren't educated and don't care.... or simply don't care if they are educated. It's not clear to me that any progress has been made by GDPR in those areas.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  Recently a company I trust was sold to a company I utterly dislike and have zero trust in. Before the sale was executed, as a EU citizen I was informed that my consent was required for the transfer of my personal data to the new owners. I did not consent. My data is not in the hands of the new owners. And under GDPR, I was able to request all the data they had on myself in order to make an archive of it before the execution of the sale. None of this was possible a year ago. Know your rights, use them, you'll get to appreciate them.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I think that is great. But I think it might be a case where Troy notes, you're educated on the topic, and like cookie tracking, you probabbly could have dealt with cookie tracking before GDPR too on your own. I'm not at all sure that applies to more than a handful of people. If that's the case, GDPR is not helping most people.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      I entirely agree with the premise that citizens don't know their rights well enough. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be available to them. Most people don't know how to read nutrition labels either; they're still there and it's a good thing they're there. Do you think they should be removed simply because people don't know how to read them? I can make the same argument as to why I believe open source is important. Most people don't know how to read source code.
      - duxup 8y ago
        I'm not saying remove them, but I wouldn't argue they're useful if people did not read them.... I've seen nutrition labels reworked repeatedly. Privacy laws aren't going to be helpful if most people don't know. Even if I opt out on say my phone... it doesn't matter if they get much of the same data form my friend's phone, about me... I think there's a lot of GDPR banner waving and it's really not helping. People think any criticism of GDPR is a suggestion that it shouldn't exist. You can belive in the ideas, and think GDPR has failed too.
diminoten 8y ago
You beg the question by saying it's "their own data" in the first place. The idea that, because it's about you it's therefore yours, is wrong.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  The famous difference between citizen-first EU and corporation-first US. Over here, we do believe that our data is ours. This is reflected in our legislation and regulation. You don't want these rights and protections in the US? Well good news, you don't have them. They still apply to us however.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    What you believe "over there" is wrong; data about you isn't yours. You can pass all the laws you like, that doesn't change the moral fact of the matter.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      I hope one day you get to reflect on that sentence you just wrote.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        I hope one day Europe stops trying to kill the human rights of its people.
        dang 8y ago
        Could you stop posting flamebait so we don't have to penalize your account again?
        diminoten 8y ago
        Sure thing, bud!
soheil 8y ago
> I don't know how to explain it any other way: These things are fucking important. I think many people specially on HN understand the implications of using cookies and also understand the privacy concerns by 3rd parties taking their data. What I don't understand is why there are people who assume almost everyone has absolutely no idea or concern about any of these things and therefore advocate for pushing horrible and half-baked regulations like GDPR unto the dumb masses.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  GDPR is neither horrible nor half baked. The word you're looking for is flawed. I don't know why you expected it to be perfect from the get-go when it's such a complex subject in the first place. What it is however is a major step up from before. It's an excellent start. You won't do any better by scrapping the whole thing and starting over. You can improve it. Explain to me why you're better off without it.
  - soheil 8y ago
    Cookie warning is probably the biggest thing for me, I can see the web slowly dying before my eyes little by little with dumb things like banners blocking 5% of all websites. All you need is 20 more dumb rules and there won't be anything to see on any website you first visit ever again. I'm not saying cookie warning is 100% the result of GDPR but it as sure as hell is a side effect. We must be careful about possible outcomes of our actions no matter how noble our intentions. Go ahead downvote!
  - 4ec0755f5522 8y ago
    I don't get the hate either. I was AMAZED the first time I saw how easily I could opt-out to literally HUNDREDS of ad/tracking companies. And without breaking my browser, as I have to do sometimes (disable js or block all cookies-- see how long you can go without running into a completely broken website). GPDR is both imperfect and awesome.
alkonaut 8y ago
People believe the GDPR is about cookie warnings. That's the problem. The GDPR is great and the annoying cookie warnings is about 1% of GDPR. You can't say "I liked it better before GDPR because cookie warnings".
- lmkg 8y ago
  GDPR is actually 0% about cookie warnings, because that's an entirely separate piece of legislation. But yes, the online stuff in general is maybe 10% of GDPR tops, and half of that is what goes on behind your back.

fixermark 8y ago

> I don't know how to explain it any other way: These things are fucking important. I believe that thought is treated as an axiom by some and an under-tested hypothesis by others.

scrollaway 8y ago
That they're not important to everyone doesn't make them unimportant for everyone. It's kinda like other rights such as free speech. Some people don't need/use it. Some specific people might arguably be better off without it. But Everyone needs it; as in, it needs to be available to everyone for it to work.
- fixermark 8y ago
  It's worth noting that the United States considers a right to keep and bear arms as important as a right to free speech. Internationally, reasonable disagreement on rights seen by some as fundamental is to be expected.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    You make a fair point, but the right to bear arms is mainly controversial for safety reasons. What safety issues are there with providing customers control (or at least visibility) over their data? It's also worth pointing out that the right to bear arms, by its origin, should probably be called the "right to revolt". While this is still a controversial issue for governments (governments don't want revolt), it's less controversial for citizens.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      I think the safety issues with GDPR compliance are minimal (there's a weak argument to be made for inefficiency introduction and contributing to warning blindness, but it is a weak argument). Larger arguments are in the space of tradeoffs. What could companies be doing with the engineering resources devoted to GDPR compliance (including compliance with the consumer-frustrating applications of the law, like the cookie walls)? Since the US doesn't have a GDPR compliance law (and companies in the US only comply when they want to do business in the EU), we'll probably see with time whether the inefficiency introduced is worth the tradeoffs in a highly-competitive world of software services.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        I agree with you that the whole thing is inefficient. I think every GDPR advocate, much like me, will agree that it still needs to be improved and worked on. We're nowhere done.
    - Jach 8y ago
      There is a safety issue in that data previously only visible internally is now also exposed to the customer/user and any unauthorized person successfully pretending to be them. The problem of "account compromised" now becomes a bigger (potentially much bigger) problem of "account compromised and juicy data is exfiltrated under a GDPR data dump request (and maybe followed by a request for deletion right after maybe making it so that the authorized user can't even know what was taken)".

duxup 8y ago

I like the spirit of GDPR. I think it is important. It also doesn't matter if people aren't educated and don't care.... or simply don't care if they are educated. It's not clear to me that any progress has been made by GDPR in those areas.

scrollaway 8y ago
Recently a company I trust was sold to a company I utterly dislike and have zero trust in. Before the sale was executed, as a EU citizen I was informed that my consent was required for the transfer of my personal data to the new owners. I did not consent. My data is not in the hands of the new owners. And under GDPR, I was able to request all the data they had on myself in order to make an archive of it before the execution of the sale. None of this was possible a year ago. Know your rights, use them, you'll get to appreciate them.
- duxup 8y ago
  I think that is great. But I think it might be a case where Troy notes, you're educated on the topic, and like cookie tracking, you probabbly could have dealt with cookie tracking before GDPR too on your own. I'm not at all sure that applies to more than a handful of people. If that's the case, GDPR is not helping most people.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    I entirely agree with the premise that citizens don't know their rights well enough. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be available to them. Most people don't know how to read nutrition labels either; they're still there and it's a good thing they're there. Do you think they should be removed simply because people don't know how to read them? I can make the same argument as to why I believe open source is important. Most people don't know how to read source code.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I'm not saying remove them, but I wouldn't argue they're useful if people did not read them.... I've seen nutrition labels reworked repeatedly. Privacy laws aren't going to be helpful if most people don't know. Even if I opt out on say my phone... it doesn't matter if they get much of the same data form my friend's phone, about me... I think there's a lot of GDPR banner waving and it's really not helping. People think any criticism of GDPR is a suggestion that it shouldn't exist. You can belive in the ideas, and think GDPR has failed too.

diminoten 8y ago

You beg the question by saying it's "their own data" in the first place. The idea that, because it's about you it's therefore yours, is wrong.

scrollaway 8y ago
The famous difference between citizen-first EU and corporation-first US. Over here, we do believe that our data is ours. This is reflected in our legislation and regulation. You don't want these rights and protections in the US? Well good news, you don't have them. They still apply to us however.
- diminoten 8y ago
  What you believe "over there" is wrong; data about you isn't yours. You can pass all the laws you like, that doesn't change the moral fact of the matter.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    I hope one day you get to reflect on that sentence you just wrote.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      I hope one day Europe stops trying to kill the human rights of its people.
      - dang 8y ago
        Could you stop posting flamebait so we don't have to penalize your account again?
        diminoten 8y ago
        Sure thing, bud!

soheil 8y ago

> I don't know how to explain it any other way: These things are fucking important. I think many people specially on HN understand the implications of using cookies and also understand the privacy concerns by 3rd parties taking their data. What I don't understand is why there are people who assume almost everyone has absolutely no idea or concern about any of these things and therefore advocate for pushing horrible and half-baked regulations like GDPR unto the dumb masses.

scrollaway 8y ago
GDPR is neither horrible nor half baked. The word you're looking for is flawed. I don't know why you expected it to be perfect from the get-go when it's such a complex subject in the first place. What it is however is a major step up from before. It's an excellent start. You won't do any better by scrapping the whole thing and starting over. You can improve it. Explain to me why you're better off without it.
- soheil 8y ago
  Cookie warning is probably the biggest thing for me, I can see the web slowly dying before my eyes little by little with dumb things like banners blocking 5% of all websites. All you need is 20 more dumb rules and there won't be anything to see on any website you first visit ever again. I'm not saying cookie warning is 100% the result of GDPR but it as sure as hell is a side effect. We must be careful about possible outcomes of our actions no matter how noble our intentions. Go ahead downvote!
- 4ec0755f5522 8y ago
  I don't get the hate either. I was AMAZED the first time I saw how easily I could opt-out to literally HUNDREDS of ad/tracking companies. And without breaking my browser, as I have to do sometimes (disable js or block all cookies-- see how long you can go without running into a completely broken website). GPDR is both imperfect and awesome.

alkonaut 8y ago

People believe the GDPR is about cookie warnings. That's the problem. The GDPR is great and the annoying cookie warnings is about 1% of GDPR. You can't say "I liked it better before GDPR because cookie warnings".

lmkg 8y ago
GDPR is actually 0% about cookie warnings, because that's an entirely separate piece of legislation. But yes, the online stuff in general is maybe 10% of GDPR tops, and half of that is what goes on behind your back.