4 ms·
Doesn't this approach put the cart before the horse? The GDPR contains a lot of aspirational language, but European data protection authorities haven't yet arti
by AlanYx 5y ago
Doesn't this approach put the cart before the horse? The GDPR contains a lot of aspirational language, but European data protection authorities haven't yet articulated clear, binding common standards in this area. In the linked article, Max acknowledges this ("Others said that they want a clear ruling by the authorities, before they start complying.")
There's also the reality that different DPAs have different interpretations of what the GDPR requires. In the linked article, Max also acknowledges this: "We need clear pan-European rules. Right now, a German company feels that the French authorities’ interpretation of the GDPR only applies to France, even though they operate under the same law within the same European market."
This may be an unpopular take, but Noyb is essentially harassing hundreds of companies with his organization's particular interpretation of the GDPR. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to first push authorities to develop common, clear, technically detailed, and legally binding interpretations of the GDPR, rather than going after companies to take action in what is still a grey area? It's not even clear at this point that the changes Noyb is pushing for are either legally required or, on the flipside, legally sufficient.
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoOh, just stop it right there. GDPR is already quite clear, the companies just keep pretending it’s more complicated than it actually is because they want to continue to look out for number one, is all.
- AlanYx 5y agoBut the GDPR is not clear -- I gave two examples from the linked article to support my point. The same thing is true across the GDPR... I'm more familiar with the academic literature around whether there is a "right to an explanation" for AI systems embedded in the GDPR, for example. There are dozens of academic papers arguing both sides of that specific question, with no clear conclusion or consensus.
- zibzab 5y agoYour mistake is that you belive that (1) the law is not clear and (2) these poor companies end up with these crazy solutions because the law is unclear. The thing is that the _intent_ of the law is very clear. You could search for loopholes and come up with all kinds of creative solutions to go around it, but then you can't pretend it is a decision you made in good fate.
- slownews45 5y agoHaha - on HN we literally have folks saying that a cookie popup / banner is a GDPR violation, and others pointing out the .eu sites that do exactly that (govt run!). So yes - the GDPR is confusing as hell! You either have to pop up for explicit consent or are not supposed to yadda yadda. The average user is relatively sick of the GDPR I think that this point.
- throwaway525142 5y agoCan you point out a link to comments that contradict each other? AFAIK, you can use cookie banners, but opting in has to be as easy as opting out. The .eu sites do that.
- slownews45 5y agoSure - it's a common view that the banners are a GDPR violation or not required. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28134437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28134437
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoHow they say it on HN... It's pointless to expect someone to understand something if their pay depends on them on understanding it.