3 ms·

I want to buy a car without emissions control or catalytic converter, running on leaded fuel. I want to burn that old smokey coal in my home and factory again.

I want to buy a car without emissions control or catalytic converter, running on leaded fuel. I want to burn that old smokey coal in my home and factory again. All things laws have forced makers not to do. This is just the same, except it concerns misuse of personal data.

manigandham 7y ago
Not sure what that example is trying to show. A company that requires ads and data to pay for the service cannot be forced to provide that service without those ads and data at no cost to a user. The choice is freely given as a user by not giving consent to data, which means the site doesn't offer the service.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  >cannot be forced to provide that service without those ads and data at no cost to a user. // AIUI the GDPR means you can't exclude users on the basis of their willingness to give up PII. So you're going to need to charge everyone. You can probably refund those who do give your PII, or pay them for it in a more direct way. But you can't offer a service where the only differentiator between access and denial of service is "give us your PII"?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The PII is necessary to pay for the content. If you don't give consent then they can't process the data and cant offer you the service. Necessary requirements are allowed under GDPR. GDPR can prevent extraneous data capture but it can't force companies to provide services without compensation.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      When you go to the shop and buy a book, do they ask for PII instead of money? It doesn't seem necessary, just the particular way that people have chosen to do things to hide their taking of payment.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        When you go to the library and check out a book, do they ask for money instead of PII? A business is free to choose their compensation model. Your choice is to not engage if you don't want it, not to demand it for free regardless.
        Thiez 7y ago
        > A business is free to choose their compensation model. But they are not. Your compensation model generally cannot include such things as slavery, child labour, prostitution... Many places place limits on the amount of interest that may be charged on a loan. A business is free to choose their compensation model within the confines of what the law allows. In case of the GDPR it disallows paying through PII. Thus a business is not free to choose this model.
        manigandham 7y ago
        But the law does allow for ads as payment. GDPR only regulates consent and privacy, not business models, and absolutely allows for PII as payment as long as consent is obtained and data is secure. However it can't force a company that requires data to be processed for a service to still provide that service when the data is not consented to. That is impossible without breaking the very law that prevents it. This whole thread is just people refusing that data can be necessary for the service, which is fine if that's your interpretation, but not what major law firms actually agree on and it's certainly not going to hold up in court.
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        >people refusing that data can be necessary for the service // I'm failing to understand how Techcrunch's provision of articles is impossible without my provision of PII, they seem to manage to display those articles to other people even when I don't give them _my_ PII. It sounds like someone is confused as to what essential means; it doesn't mean "carry on using the same privacy infringing business model regardless".

manigandham 7y ago

Not sure what that example is trying to show. A company that requires ads and data to pay for the service cannot be forced to provide that service without those ads and data at no cost to a user. The choice is freely given as a user by not giving consent to data, which means the site doesn't offer the service.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>cannot be forced to provide that service without those ads and data at no cost to a user. // AIUI the GDPR means you can't exclude users on the basis of their willingness to give up PII. So you're going to need to charge everyone. You can probably refund those who do give your PII, or pay them for it in a more direct way. But you can't offer a service where the only differentiator between access and denial of service is "give us your PII"?
- manigandham 7y ago
  The PII is necessary to pay for the content. If you don't give consent then they can't process the data and cant offer you the service. Necessary requirements are allowed under GDPR. GDPR can prevent extraneous data capture but it can't force companies to provide services without compensation.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    When you go to the shop and buy a book, do they ask for PII instead of money? It doesn't seem necessary, just the particular way that people have chosen to do things to hide their taking of payment.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      When you go to the library and check out a book, do they ask for money instead of PII? A business is free to choose their compensation model. Your choice is to not engage if you don't want it, not to demand it for free regardless.
      - Thiez 7y ago
        > A business is free to choose their compensation model. But they are not. Your compensation model generally cannot include such things as slavery, child labour, prostitution... Many places place limits on the amount of interest that may be charged on a loan. A business is free to choose their compensation model within the confines of what the law allows. In case of the GDPR it disallows paying through PII. Thus a business is not free to choose this model.
        manigandham 7y ago
        But the law does allow for ads as payment. GDPR only regulates consent and privacy, not business models, and absolutely allows for PII as payment as long as consent is obtained and data is secure. However it can't force a company that requires data to be processed for a service to still provide that service when the data is not consented to. That is impossible without breaking the very law that prevents it. This whole thread is just people refusing that data can be necessary for the service, which is fine if that's your interpretation, but not what major law firms actually agree on and it's certainly not going to hold up in court.
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        >people refusing that data can be necessary for the service // I'm failing to understand how Techcrunch's provision of articles is impossible without my provision of PII, they seem to manage to display those articles to other people even when I don't give them _my_ PII. It sounds like someone is confused as to what essential means; it doesn't mean "carry on using the same privacy infringing business model regardless".