9 ms·
I find it highly entertaining that they talk about denying rights and then deny the whole of the EU access because they insist on violating their readers' priva
by fefe23 5y ago
I find it highly entertaining that they talk about denying rights and then deny the whole of the EU access because they insist on violating their readers' privacy rights and that would be illegal in the EU.
- yosito 5y agoI mean, that's kind of tangential to the topic at hand, but you're not wrong.
- civilized 5y agoPerhaps a fair point, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to the topic at hand. We're talking about Chinese-born students in America being ratted out to the Chinese government for exercising their free expression rights like model American citizens, even though they are foreigners. If I had the relevant Presidential powers, I'd offer citizenship to every one of the threatened students, and the rats would be sent packing home to China the second they were identified. The 50 cent lackeys of Pooh-Bear[1] are not welcome here in America. Go home, scumbags!! [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-winnie-the-pooh-film-to-stop-comparisons-to-president-xi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-win...
- marcus_holmes 5y agoKinda bizarre assumption that the Chinese nationals getting their education in the USA automatically want to become citizens of the USA.
- civilized 5y agoYour assumption that I'm assuming that is even more bizarre. But regardless, plenty of them do want to become citizens -- especially the kind that speaks their mind in public. There's nothing wrong with making the offer.
- swsieber 5y agoThat's not what was said. I think the offer is nice even if they don't want it.
- Icko 5y agoRicher country, better quality of life, more personal freedoms. Not bizarre assumption at all.
- star-trek-fleet 5y ago> Richer country Trust me most students in US nowadays are family financial support. They are already rich. And the US do not often give enough working position for them (outside of tech, which h1b is not particularly friendly) > better quality of life This definitely is wrong. Those kids enjoyed a far better life in China than US. > more personal freedoms. Well, for what they want to do, they'll have more freedom...
- pcmoney 5y agoThen maybe we don't let them study here if they don't need it and we don't want them?
- BINGCHILLING 5y ago> This definitely is wrong. Those kids enjoyed a far better life in China than US. they can stay there then lol
- civilized 5y agoIf China is such a paradise for the children of the Chinese elite, why do they overwhelmingly go to US universities? Why bother ever leaving China at all?
- justicezyx 5y agoEducation gilded one?
- throw10920 5y agoPlease cite the section of the comment that assumed that? I can't see it anywhere.
- pasabagi 5y agoIt would be kinda interesting if somebody actually implemented a law like this: all citizens without free speech get automatic asylum. You'd have half of the world turning up on your doorstep within a month. More seriously, it's also interesting when you think back to how asylum worked during the cold war. Migrants, even explicit economic migrants, were encouraged to emigrate from communist countries (cuba, east germany, etc), while asylum seekers in imminent threat of torture and death (say, 70's era Iranians, 80's tamils, etc) were blocked.
- popcube 5y agoyou know, this is why so many scientists migrated to USA
- luciusdomitius 5y agoThis is a very shallow statement. Probably 99.99% of people fleeing the above-mentioned communist countries were detained at border and sent to camps with tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands being literally murdered while attempting to do so. Obviously the big difference in this case is the numbers of potential asylum seekers, not the origin.
- inglor_cz 5y ago"Probably 99.99% of people fleeing the above-mentioned communist countries" As far as Czechoslovakia goes, the success rate was WAY beyond 1:10000, that is why people still tried. About 400 people were killed on our militarized border with West Germany and Austria. The # of people who succeeded was actually over 10 thousand, especially in the earliest phase (1948-51), when the security of the border was far from perfect. You could also escape in less dramatic fashion, for example by going to Yugoslavia (a non-aligned country) for a vacation and defecting. Of course, whoever was caught and their families would face serious repercussions. In the Stalinist era, Gulag, after it, less pronounced bullying (loss of jobs, forbidden from higher education, forcibly moved to rural regions).
- Turing_Machine 5y agoThe fact that they don't want to spend the time and money to conform to the EU's bureaucratic "privacy theatre" is not evidence that they're actually violating anyone's privacy rights.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Miner49er 5y agoWhat makes you day they are violating readers' privacy rights? It's a not-for-profit student newspaper, they probably just don't want to risk GDPR fines. Or they don't expect readers from Europe.
- pc86 5y agoUnless Purdue plans on opening a campus within the EU, they don't have to pay any of them. Not much of a risk, right?
- rnotaro 5y agoI have not a deep knowledge of GDPR but wouldn't their study abroad / student exchanges programs with universities from Europe be considered like doing business in Europe?
- pc86 5y agoThis is an excellent point I hadn't considered. You're probably right.
- kube-system 5y agoI have no clue about Purdue, but many large universities with significant numbers of international students have things like recruiting offices abroad, etc.
- oauea 5y agoWhy would they be fined if they're not violating their readers' privacy?
- quartz 5y agoAs someone who has asked that question to a series of lawyers, the answer is surprisingly expensive.
- 5y ago
- cdot2 5y agoThey probably just don't want to put a cookie banner on their student newspaper to comply with foreign regulations
- oauea 5y agoThey wouldn't have to if they didn't invade your privacy to begin with.
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoOr they could just not track readers with cookies and not collect their private data.
- cdot2 5y agoIt looks like they use cookies for saving login information.
- teddyh 5y agoIn which case a cookie banner is unnecessary.
- lucb1e 5y agoLike a sibling said, you misunderstand these laws (there have been more than one, but the main one now is GDPR). I never heard of a law where you needed a privacy wall to inform people about some technical features of how the website works. It's only when you store tracking tokens in the cookie jar, localStorage, etags, etc., that you need to tell them what data you are collecting. If you do not need opt-in consent just to view the page, then no coercive wall is ever required. Literally every single one of the sites with so-called cookie walls can be divided into two categories: site owners that have no idea what the law actually says but they think it's trendy or something, and sites that have no legitimate interest or other legal reason for processing some data and therefore need to seek your "freely given" opt-in consent. If they already had a legal grounds, they wouldn't need to ask for it.
- quartz 5y agoI feel like you've got that backwards: making the site available if it violates GDPR would be violating your rights. Making the site unavailable to you is respecting them. That's not to mention that what's much more likely here is that a student focused and student run campus newspaper in West Lafayette, IN likely just considers the EU out of scope of their audience vs the cost of figuring out if they're GDPR compliant.
- DocTomoe 5y agoYou should take the outside perspective into account: For me as an EU employer, this implies students from West Lafayette, Indiana, are unable to fulfils even the most basic of rules regarding privacy and are thus a liability. Doing this - even if the site itself is not directly associated with the student body - diminishes the perceived worth of the degree.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- oakfr 5y agoThe “cost” of being GDPR compliant is negligible if you simply put static content on your website and don’t track users.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> because they insist on violating their readers' privacy rights and that would be illegal in the EU. Bad assumption. Maybe an unpopular fact, but many sites simply block EU access to avoid potential legal pitfalls of navigating foreign laws. Getting the site compliant would require review from legal teams and work from (likely contracted) web developers, which is almost certainly not in the budget for a side site like this. Not every website is backed by a corporation with on-staff web developers and corporate counsel to double-check everything. Their audience is primarily a local one, so allocating the budget to do this and maintain it isn’t worth it.
- gorgoiler 5y agoIt’s a form of purity spiral where the consensus on acceptable behaviour becomes narrower and narrower as peope try to out-compete each other on who is the most virtuous, or in this case who is the most careful about nonexistent GDPR risks.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> or in this case who is the most careful about nonexistent GDPR risks. Parent comment is convinced the site is doing something that would be illegal. You are convinced that the site’s GDPR risk is non-existence. It’s amazing how many people sitting on the sidelines can be so confident about GDPR while having entirely opposite opinions. But my point stands: This stuff is complicated and requires sign-off from the lawyers in any large institution. If you don’t have a reason or budget to go through that process, you don’t do it. It’s not virtue signaling or anything silly like that. It’s basic corporate legal protections.
- gorgoiler 5y agoWith respect, your assertion that these 451s serve a useful purpose does not match up with my experience of seeing them in the wild. In fact this is the first one I’ve seen that isn’t being done as a protest.
- bubblethink 5y ago
- kriops 5y agoThey are complying with EU regulations in place to protect the right to privacy, I can respect it.
- thesuitonym 5y agoIt's not denying rights, it's denying service. Right or wrong (I think it's wrong, btw), let's not mix up what's happening to make it sound worse.
- Kim_Bruning 5y agoIsn't denying service even worse?