5 ms·

Requirements that data must be handled in a certain way is akin to requirements that electronics have no lead in them and that cars emit only a certain amount o

Requirements that data must be handled in a certain way is akin to requirements that electronics have no lead in them and that cars emit only a certain amount of toxic fumes and that cattle aren't addled with too much HGH. If you see no value in the regulations then you might see it as you have. But in reality the regulations are valuable and that is why you see the different reactions.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. It’s arguable been most successful in Access to Data area, and to some extend Data Erasure. But the Consent and Documentation provisions are a complete joke. Most EU data subjects have no idea who’s holding their data, or how/why they have access to it. The only area it’s been truly successful in has been levying fines against foreign companies and restricting access to the EU market. It’s a very successful piece of tariff legislation. Because the compliance strategy from most organizations was either stop trading in the EU, or accept the fines as a cost of business. (edit: there's also a 3rd common compliance strategy, which is just to pretend that since you're not specifically targeting EU data subjects, that you don't have to comply. I believe this is part of the reason that HN ignores the GDPR for instance)
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  >"that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes" Russian regulation against corruption has not achieved the intended outcomes, therefore they should have no regulation against corruption at all?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on privacy. Given they have largely failed to achieve their stated goal, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to see the EU imposing further regulation on online services/information distribution. However it makes perfect sense when you look at what they actually accomplish. Which is implementing (rather controversial) economic protectionist policies, under the guise of something unrelated and far less controversial. To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.
    - fnord123 6y ago
      > To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it. Getting into your car doesn't get you to work in the morning. Why do it? Because it's a part of a larger process.
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        If history's shown us anything it's that the solution to ineffectual regulation is more ineffectual regulation, right? Eventually all of the things that don't work will somehow add up to something that does? The place that your weak analogy falls over is that I can show you empirical evidence that if I want to drive to work in the morning, that I have to get into my car first. You do not have any sort of evidence that the GDPR will eventually work for some unstated reason. As a side note, why has the weak analogy become such a popular logical fallacy? Do you honestly see similarities between regulating data access and driving to work?
- fnord123 6y ago
  > This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. followed by > [list of benefits to privacy and one that maybe needs more work] stay salty.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    The Consent and Documentation provisions are the only part of the GDPR that protect your privacy. Without that the Access to Data provisions is largely moot. Why would it occur to anybody to send access requests to some large market analytics company they've never heard of? Its beneficial in the narrow scope of cases where a data subject knowingly consents to a party that they are directly familiar with having their data (like Facebook), and they want to find out specifically what it is. But your average data subject is being tracked without consent by a myriad of companies they've never heard of, and all that data is aggregated and sold on by a myriad of other companies they've never heard of. Without informed consent, the GDPR falls incredibly far from even coming close to achieving it's stated objectives, and that's basically where it is today. And as I said, for the companies that actually do have to worry about enforcement, it's largely just incorporated into the cost of business.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. It’s arguable been most successful in Access to Data area, and to some extend Data Erasure. But the Consent and Documentation provisions are a complete joke. Most EU data subjects have no idea who’s holding their data, or how/why they have access to it. The only area it’s been truly successful in has been levying fines against foreign companies and restricting access to the EU market. It’s a very successful piece of tariff legislation. Because the compliance strategy from most organizations was either stop trading in the EU, or accept the fines as a cost of business. (edit: there's also a 3rd common compliance strategy, which is just to pretend that since you're not specifically targeting EU data subjects, that you don't have to comply. I believe this is part of the reason that HN ignores the GDPR for instance)

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
>"that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes" Russian regulation against corruption has not achieved the intended outcomes, therefore they should have no regulation against corruption at all?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I won’t comment on Russian corruption laws, since I don’t know anything about them. However I do know that the only factor that the stated purpose of any piece of legislation/regulation will influence is public perception of it. The stated purpose of a law has no influence at all over its practical impact. The impact of the GDPR has largely been to establish trade barriers, and it has had a very minimal impact on privacy. Given they have largely failed to achieve their stated goal, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to see the EU imposing further regulation on online services/information distribution. However it makes perfect sense when you look at what they actually accomplish. Which is implementing (rather controversial) economic protectionist policies, under the guise of something unrelated and far less controversial. To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it.
  - fnord123 6y ago
    > To answer your reductio ad absurdum more directly, if you’re doing something that doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense to keep doing it. Getting into your car doesn't get you to work in the morning. Why do it? Because it's a part of a larger process.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      If history's shown us anything it's that the solution to ineffectual regulation is more ineffectual regulation, right? Eventually all of the things that don't work will somehow add up to something that does? The place that your weak analogy falls over is that I can show you empirical evidence that if I want to drive to work in the morning, that I have to get into my car first. You do not have any sort of evidence that the GDPR will eventually work for some unstated reason. As a side note, why has the weak analogy become such a popular logical fallacy? Do you honestly see similarities between regulating data access and driving to work?
fnord123 6y ago
> This comment is based on an assumption that the regulation actually achieved beneficial privacy outcomes. followed by > [list of benefits to privacy and one that maybe needs more work] stay salty.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  The Consent and Documentation provisions are the only part of the GDPR that protect your privacy. Without that the Access to Data provisions is largely moot. Why would it occur to anybody to send access requests to some large market analytics company they've never heard of? Its beneficial in the narrow scope of cases where a data subject knowingly consents to a party that they are directly familiar with having their data (like Facebook), and they want to find out specifically what it is. But your average data subject is being tracked without consent by a myriad of companies they've never heard of, and all that data is aggregated and sold on by a myriad of other companies they've never heard of. Without informed consent, the GDPR falls incredibly far from even coming close to achieving it's stated objectives, and that's basically where it is today. And as I said, for the companies that actually do have to worry about enforcement, it's largely just incorporated into the cost of business.