3 ms·

That's really stretching the meaning of "essential to delivering content and services". If I search using Google, all I want is the results. If I have Gmail, al

That's really stretching the meaning of "essential to delivering content and services". If I search using Google, all I want is the results. If I have Gmail, all I want is an email account. Anything else is clearly extraneous. Edit: And they can always offer more. With clear explanation of what information they'll need to retain. And users can either accept, or decline.

jolmg 7y ago
> If I search using Google, all I want is the results. They also remember your searches to provide personalized results, and many people do like that. > Anything else is clearly extraneous. Isn't the point of a business to provide the best product or service they can (for the price they ask)? What's the point of a business that does the bare minimum? How are they supposed to compete? In any case, the point is that it's not as clear cut to know what violates privacy and what doesn't. To tie it back to your original comment: > The gist of these laws are all the same. Just respect ALL users' data from the start, and you shouldn't have any difficulty with compliance. They aren't necessarily going to be the same. What is to respect all users' data? There's no concrete consensus on what violating privacy consists of. Is saving searches for personalized results consistent across personal devices violating privacy? Some will say yes, others will say no. Also, if you err on the side of caution and avoid providing features, you're going to lose edge. It seems to me that it's very important to a business's survival to know where the borderline is. That's why I would agree with rdlecler1 that > a small startup needs to ensure they comply with hundreds of regulatory jurisdictions if they want to have a chance for survival and peace of mind that they aren't even technically guilty of anything in any one jurisdiction even if in their own eyes they did everything to respect their users' data. The internet probably wouldn't have gotten as big if it weren't for the fact that it's largely lawless. If every geographical region makes their own regulations, only big world corporations will be able to comply.

jolmg 7y ago

> If I search using Google, all I want is the results. They also remember your searches to provide personalized results, and many people do like that. > Anything else is clearly extraneous. Isn't the point of a business to provide the best product or service they can (for the price they ask)? What's the point of a business that does the bare minimum? How are they supposed to compete? In any case, the point is that it's not as clear cut to know what violates privacy and what doesn't. To tie it back to your original comment: > The gist of these laws are all the same. Just respect ALL users' data from the start, and you shouldn't have any difficulty with compliance. They aren't necessarily going to be the same. What is to respect all users' data? There's no concrete consensus on what violating privacy consists of. Is saving searches for personalized results consistent across personal devices violating privacy? Some will say yes, others will say no. Also, if you err on the side of caution and avoid providing features, you're going to lose edge. It seems to me that it's very important to a business's survival to know where the borderline is. That's why I would agree with rdlecler1 that > a small startup needs to ensure they comply with hundreds of regulatory jurisdictions if they want to have a chance for survival and peace of mind that they aren't even technically guilty of anything in any one jurisdiction even if in their own eyes they did everything to respect their users' data. The internet probably wouldn't have gotten as big if it weren't for the fact that it's largely lawless. If every geographical region makes their own regulations, only big world corporations will be able to comply.