4 ms·

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?" Now it makes perfect sense.

gnode 7y ago
Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR), because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger monopoly. It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.
- throwaway35784 7y ago
  Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy, rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.
  - gnode 7y ago
    > Do you really believe they want gdpr? It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position. Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller competitors. I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business. I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of: appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of data.
ggggtez 7y ago
>Glad I actually read the actual article. Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...

gnode 7y ago

Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR), because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger monopoly. It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.

throwaway35784 7y ago
Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy, rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.
- gnode 7y ago
  > Do you really believe they want gdpr? It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position. Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller competitors. I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business. I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of: appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of data.

ggggtez 7y ago

>Glad I actually read the actual article. Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...