55 ms·

I'll re-phrase. Imagine I'm a startup. If government force me to to delete some data, it makes my life easier, no data - no privacy issues. if someone tells me

by maxdo 5y ago

I'll re-phrase. Imagine I'm a startup. If government force me to to delete some data, it makes my life easier, no data - no privacy issues. if someone tells me , I want to port my data to competitor, because my UI better then theirs, but they still prefer competitor, why should I care about this requests, why should i spent a single second of my engineers time to implement that?

dbetteridge 5y ago
Because the data isn't yours, it belongs to the customer. That is the opinion that GDPR encodes into law
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pmlnr 5y ago
Erm... because you need to follow laws. Your company would file tax records, right? And follow fire and building regulations in the office, correct? So why would it not follow GDPR?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Isn’t engineering time cheaper than legal counsel time when your customers file complaints with the government against your org for not adhering to the law?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Is any legal counsel time actually being spent on this? It seems like all the disability legislation. In theory it applies to websites. In practice, few give it a 2nd thought. I have yet to hear of a company significantly harmed by failing to consider accessibility.
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago
  Yes unless you already have lawers on staff.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > engineering time cheaper than legal counsel time For a Silicon Valley based company hiring EU lawyers, no. Engineers are more expensive. Also, for a Silicon Valley company with limited or no EU presence, the time value of money may make incurring that deferred cost worth the saves near-term engineering time. Laws should be followed. But laws must be enforced. OP’s point is valid. The EU passed a law and delegated enforcement to its various members, each of whom have varying levels (and interpretations) of enforcement around different parts of the text. Until that changes, GDPR compliance will remain a courtesy. Not a right.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Good points, appreciate the reply.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jensus 5y ago
the mental shift seems to be to not regard your customers data as your product but rather focus on your service as your product
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible. The result will be fewer free services (to put it differently, fewer services and fewer choices). If you don't pay for stuff with your data, you can't have it for free. Are we sure we want to use government regulations to impose this on consumers of services, from the top down? Instead of, say, letting them decide? (Yes, of course it's an industry talking point. The best kind - one that's true and valid, and so far not effectively refuted).
  - lolinder 5y ago
    A business model does not have a right to exist just because individuals would choose to patronize it if legal. There are plenty of predatory business models that capitalize on market failures. "Free" definitely appears to be one of those business models.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      To clarify, you are saying we should legislate away the right of a consumer to consent to a service whereby, in lieu of payment, the consumer is delivered targeted advertisement based on the data generated by their use of the service? If this phrasing is incorrect, please correct it. It's just really helpful to be clear and precise in such discussions, because people sometimes hide the essence of their argument behind ambiguous verbiage.
      - hansvm 5y ago
        Given the context of GDPR data portability, it seems more likely that they're saying that businesses shouldn't have a right to hold data hostage as a method of lock-in, especially in lieu of providing a service people like enough to voluntarily stick with. The "targeted advertising as payment" thing is a separate can of worms that they may or may not care about.
TeMPOraL 5y ago
> if someone tells me , I want to port my data to competitor, because my UI better then theirs, but they still prefer competitor, why should I care about this requests, why should i spent a single second of my engineers time to implement that? Because you're a good person and care about providing value to your users, and not just extracting value from them. But since in practice, we can't rely on every business to be run by good citizens, this needs to be made a legal requirement, to remove the competitive advantage from being predatory and locking users down.
- ohwanderu 5y ago
  It would also be highly valuable to me as a user to receive a $500/week check from all the services I use. Who at Emergynt can I reach out to in order to get this?
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    No one, since you aren't using any of Emergynt's services. Also, nice low-effort doxx. Reminds me I need to update my LinkedIn profile.
- golergka 5y ago
  > Because you're a good person and care about providing value to your users, and not just extracting value from them. That's a false dichotomy that is also misrepresents the nature of a typical business transaction. If you're a good person and a business owner, you're looking to make mutually beneficial business transactions. If someone is looking to move away from using your business, then it's them who's trying to extract value from you, without giving anything in return. Of course, sometimes, as just a good person, you want to do good for other people without anything in return — but you can do it as a private person, putting your profits into charity funds. Separation of concerns is a good thing that make things clear. Also, from any moral point of view, money spent on engineer salary that allows some food app user to migrate to a competitor is probably not spent as well as feeding hungry or providing health care to sick anyway.
  - 5y ago
croes 5y ago
I'll re-phrase: why should I care about the requests of my users? Now you know why they prefer your competitor over your better UI. Your UI may be better, but your UX sucks.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
A company that builds houses would very much avoid building those pointless and expensive security features. Why would they spend a second of their architects' time on that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
est31 5y ago
If you are a startup, then such a law directly benefits you because you might want to convince users to migrate to your services. If the big established competitor of yours has to offer data exports, such a migration is made easier for you, enabling your startup to grow faster, and giving users the ability to enjoy more innovation in the market.
cromulent 5y ago
Barriers to exit are also barriers to entry.
tomcooks 5y ago
Because it's not your data, it's mine?
goodpoint 5y ago
Because removing an exit barrier means removing lock-in. Not holding customers data hostage can increase your service adoption. E.g. many companies would not pay for a web-only email service where you cannot download and backup emails. E.g. A lot of people pay for non-locked books (epubs) that can be carried over across different devices. Governments across the world broke lock-in mechanisms for decades (e.g. carrying phone numbers, being able to buy gas/car oil/car tires/PC components/ from independent vendors)
WA 5y ago
You don't write an API to port stuff to your competitor. You write a JSON or CSV export and competitors can then make an import tool for your data format (and vice versa). Is this really an effort? It's basically a JOIN over a bunch of tables or maybe the JSON state tree of your SPA and that's about it. Chances are, your startup works with all data of a user and has a way to request all data from the DB anyways.
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
It's not your responsibility to help your customers use a competitor's service, so you definitely don't have to care about that. However, you might care if you practice "dogfooding". The idea of eating one's own dog food is to understand the experience of the customer and improve the product. It demonstrates confidence in your product and helps you empathize with your customers. If you do this & are confident in your product, then a portability feature (to allow your customers to try out your competitors) should not be a threat. Assuming you can convey to your customers why your product is superior, they won't have need of the porting tool. If one day they think, "Hmm, I wonder if the competitor is better", and try to use the porting tool to use the competitor, and find out it's a huge pain because the competitor's product isn't as good (or doesn't work the way yours does), they may decide they just don't feel like switching. People might also use your product just because they can switch if they ever need to. Pandora is a great example of a shitty company that does not believe in its own product. If you use the free version, you are constantly bombarded with dark patterns and direct advertisements to get you to upgrade to their paid account. It's annoyware. If you eventually pay for the product, the only value add is fewer ads. There's no improved functionality, there's no easier experience, no better algorithm. Just slightly less pain. It's like upgrading from dogfood that tastes like shit, to dogfood that only smells like shit. If Pandora created a data portability tool, they would be screwing themselves, because they know their product is shit. If they had a great product, portability wouldn't be a threat to their business.
La1n 5y ago
I bet there are more laws that a company would love not to follow, but it's the law and thus you'll need to spend time implementing it.
bombcar 5y ago
This covers a good argument as to why: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-ii... And it's true - there are a number of services for work that we've never tried because there's no easy way "back".
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
I'll rephrase. Imagine I'm a startup. If someone tell me, I want to transfer my savings to a conpetitor, why should I care about this request? The answer should be obvious, it's their data just like it's their savings.
shuntress 5y ago
Because this is also required of your competitor and will allow users port their data into your startup which gives you a chance to compete.
- williamtwild 5y ago
  Being required and complying with that requirement are two different things.
  - shuntress 5y ago
    That is how every law, rule, and norm works. Are trying to imply that it is important for the legal system to have effective overseers, investigators, lawyers, juries, and judges?
jcelerier 5y ago
You're exactly the kind of person I hope my government protects me of. Companies are not meant to enrich yourself but to make the world better.
- google234123 5y ago
  Companies are not meant to make the world better...
  - afiori 5y ago
    capitalism is the belief they do
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Why should your company be allowed to lock in other people's data in your company's computers and then refuse to give it back? This is obviously abusive. Why should your company be allowed to abuse its customers? Why should an abusive company even be allowed to exist?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by maxdo 5y ago

dbetteridge 5y ago

Because the data isn't yours, it belongs to the customer. That is the opinion that GDPR encodes into law

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pmlnr 5y ago

Erm... because you need to follow laws. Your company would file tax records, right? And follow fire and building regulations in the office, correct? So why would it not follow GDPR?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Isn’t engineering time cheaper than legal counsel time when your customers file complaints with the government against your org for not adhering to the law?

MattGaiser 5y ago
Is any legal counsel time actually being spent on this? It seems like all the disability legislation. In theory it applies to websites. In practice, few give it a 2nd thought. I have yet to hear of a company significantly harmed by failing to consider accessibility.
sam_lowry_ 5y ago
Yes unless you already have lawers on staff.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> engineering time cheaper than legal counsel time For a Silicon Valley based company hiring EU lawyers, no. Engineers are more expensive. Also, for a Silicon Valley company with limited or no EU presence, the time value of money may make incurring that deferred cost worth the saves near-term engineering time. Laws should be followed. But laws must be enforced. OP’s point is valid. The EU passed a law and delegated enforcement to its various members, each of whom have varying levels (and interpretations) of enforcement around different parts of the text. Until that changes, GDPR compliance will remain a courtesy. Not a right.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Good points, appreciate the reply.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jensus 5y ago

the mental shift seems to be to not regard your customers data as your product but rather focus on your service as your product

kspacewalk2 5y ago
That will make a whole lot of business models out there not feasible. The result will be fewer free services (to put it differently, fewer services and fewer choices). If you don't pay for stuff with your data, you can't have it for free. Are we sure we want to use government regulations to impose this on consumers of services, from the top down? Instead of, say, letting them decide? (Yes, of course it's an industry talking point. The best kind - one that's true and valid, and so far not effectively refuted).
- lolinder 5y ago
  A business model does not have a right to exist just because individuals would choose to patronize it if legal. There are plenty of predatory business models that capitalize on market failures. "Free" definitely appears to be one of those business models.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    To clarify, you are saying we should legislate away the right of a consumer to consent to a service whereby, in lieu of payment, the consumer is delivered targeted advertisement based on the data generated by their use of the service? If this phrasing is incorrect, please correct it. It's just really helpful to be clear and precise in such discussions, because people sometimes hide the essence of their argument behind ambiguous verbiage.
    - hansvm 5y ago
      Given the context of GDPR data portability, it seems more likely that they're saying that businesses shouldn't have a right to hold data hostage as a method of lock-in, especially in lieu of providing a service people like enough to voluntarily stick with. The "targeted advertising as payment" thing is a separate can of worms that they may or may not care about.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> if someone tells me , I want to port my data to competitor, because my UI better then theirs, but they still prefer competitor, why should I care about this requests, why should i spent a single second of my engineers time to implement that? Because you're a good person and care about providing value to your users, and not just extracting value from them. But since in practice, we can't rely on every business to be run by good citizens, this needs to be made a legal requirement, to remove the competitive advantage from being predatory and locking users down.

ohwanderu 5y ago
It would also be highly valuable to me as a user to receive a $500/week check from all the services I use. Who at Emergynt can I reach out to in order to get this?
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  No one, since you aren't using any of Emergynt's services. Also, nice low-effort doxx. Reminds me I need to update my LinkedIn profile.
golergka 5y ago
> Because you're a good person and care about providing value to your users, and not just extracting value from them. That's a false dichotomy that is also misrepresents the nature of a typical business transaction. If you're a good person and a business owner, you're looking to make mutually beneficial business transactions. If someone is looking to move away from using your business, then it's them who's trying to extract value from you, without giving anything in return. Of course, sometimes, as just a good person, you want to do good for other people without anything in return — but you can do it as a private person, putting your profits into charity funds. Separation of concerns is a good thing that make things clear. Also, from any moral point of view, money spent on engineer salary that allows some food app user to migrate to a competitor is probably not spent as well as feeding hungry or providing health care to sick anyway.
- 5y ago

croes 5y ago

I'll re-phrase: why should I care about the requests of my users? Now you know why they prefer your competitor over your better UI. Your UI may be better, but your UX sucks.

dariosalvi78 5y ago

A company that builds houses would very much avoid building those pointless and expensive security features. Why would they spend a second of their architects' time on that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

est31 5y ago

If you are a startup, then such a law directly benefits you because you might want to convince users to migrate to your services. If the big established competitor of yours has to offer data exports, such a migration is made easier for you, enabling your startup to grow faster, and giving users the ability to enjoy more innovation in the market.

cromulent 5y ago

Barriers to exit are also barriers to entry.

tomcooks 5y ago

Because it's not your data, it's mine?

goodpoint 5y ago

Because removing an exit barrier means removing lock-in. Not holding customers data hostage can increase your service adoption. E.g. many companies would not pay for a web-only email service where you cannot download and backup emails. E.g. A lot of people pay for non-locked books (epubs) that can be carried over across different devices. Governments across the world broke lock-in mechanisms for decades (e.g. carrying phone numbers, being able to buy gas/car oil/car tires/PC components/ from independent vendors)

WA 5y ago

You don't write an API to port stuff to your competitor. You write a JSON or CSV export and competitors can then make an import tool for your data format (and vice versa). Is this really an effort? It's basically a JOIN over a bunch of tables or maybe the JSON state tree of your SPA and that's about it. Chances are, your startup works with all data of a user and has a way to request all data from the DB anyways.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

It's not your responsibility to help your customers use a competitor's service, so you definitely don't have to care about that. However, you might care if you practice "dogfooding". The idea of eating one's own dog food is to understand the experience of the customer and improve the product. It demonstrates confidence in your product and helps you empathize with your customers. If you do this & are confident in your product, then a portability feature (to allow your customers to try out your competitors) should not be a threat. Assuming you can convey to your customers why your product is superior, they won't have need of the porting tool. If one day they think, "Hmm, I wonder if the competitor is better", and try to use the porting tool to use the competitor, and find out it's a huge pain because the competitor's product isn't as good (or doesn't work the way yours does), they may decide they just don't feel like switching. People might also use your product just because they can switch if they ever need to. Pandora is a great example of a shitty company that does not believe in its own product. If you use the free version, you are constantly bombarded with dark patterns and direct advertisements to get you to upgrade to their paid account. It's annoyware. If you eventually pay for the product, the only value add is fewer ads. There's no improved functionality, there's no easier experience, no better algorithm. Just slightly less pain. It's like upgrading from dogfood that tastes like shit, to dogfood that only smells like shit. If Pandora created a data portability tool, they would be screwing themselves, because they know their product is shit. If they had a great product, portability wouldn't be a threat to their business.

La1n 5y ago

I bet there are more laws that a company would love not to follow, but it's the law and thus you'll need to spend time implementing it.

bombcar 5y ago

This covers a good argument as to why: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-ii... And it's true - there are a number of services for work that we've never tried because there's no easy way "back".

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

I'll rephrase. Imagine I'm a startup. If someone tell me, I want to transfer my savings to a conpetitor, why should I care about this request? The answer should be obvious, it's their data just like it's their savings.

shuntress 5y ago

Because this is also required of your competitor and will allow users port their data into your startup which gives you a chance to compete.

williamtwild 5y ago
Being required and complying with that requirement are two different things.
- shuntress 5y ago
  That is how every law, rule, and norm works. Are trying to imply that it is important for the legal system to have effective overseers, investigators, lawyers, juries, and judges?

jcelerier 5y ago

You're exactly the kind of person I hope my government protects me of. Companies are not meant to enrich yourself but to make the world better.

google234123 5y ago
Companies are not meant to make the world better...
- afiori 5y ago
  capitalism is the belief they do

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Why should your company be allowed to lock in other people's data in your company's computers and then refuse to give it back? This is obviously abusive. Why should your company be allowed to abuse its customers? Why should an abusive company even be allowed to exist?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]