5 ms·

> "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex po

> "The spirit of the law" is the refuge of people that can't be bothered to make good laws to begin with and just want to make up whatever rules they want ex post facto. That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. And its courts are reliable enough that we can rely on its judges having common sense when interpreting the law. Maybe the US is different. > If the spirit of the law is to ban their business model then stop pussyfooting around it and just make that the letter of the law. It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". What does the GDPR say? > 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. US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. > It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". You seem to be claiming that things like this do not exist: https://myactivity.google.com/ https://myactivity.google.com/ How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? > US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence. You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. > How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You can't turn Google's spying off. They show a modal that you can only dismiss by "agreeing" that they use your data for their purposes. > You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors. Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. > Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. > It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there? Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? It's not my problem that Google doesn't charge for their services. No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> That's a good approach if you want to play silly games, but fortunately the EU prefers effective regulation. Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. > It is, actually. But the good lawyers of US companies apparently believe, for example, that "freely given consent" means "clicking a button to make an overlay go away because we make the provision of our service conditional to spying on them". You seem to be claiming that things like this do not exist: https://myactivity.google.com/ https://myactivity.google.com/ How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? > US companies are openly breaking the GDPR and violating people's privacy. Frankly, 4% is far too low for this kind of insolence. You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors.

anoncake 7y ago
> Regulation can only be effective if people know how to follow it. Otherwise you're just a bully punishing people for things they can't predict ahead of time, and you can't produce the desired behavior because you've failed to identify what it actually is. Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. > How is the service "conditional to spying" if you can turn it off or delete the data and still use the service? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You can't turn Google's spying off. They show a modal that you can only dismiss by "agreeing" that they use your data for their purposes. > You obviously have strong opinions about Google. But is there a reason you don't just stop using their services? I can't think of any that has no competitors. Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Stop pretending that the GDPR doesn't do that. If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. > You can't turn Google's spying off. Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? > Because they're useful. That's why people use services. Idiotic question. It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > If it did that then there would be more lobbying the legislature to change it while complying with it and fewer lawsuits being filed because people disagree about what's necessary to comply with it. I'm not interested in theoretical arguments contradicting easily verifiable facts. > Then why do they have a bunch of settings where you can turn it off? You can't turn the privacy violations off that Google commits for their own profit. > It seems like you want "free" services funded by targeted advertising but you don't want targeted advertising. Is that not an inherent conflict? If the end result is that you end up paying for your services with money, why don't you just start there? Why on earth would I pay for a service I can get for free? It's not my problem that Google doesn't charge for their services. No, they aren't trading services for privacy since you cannot trade services for privacy in the EU anymore.