3 ms·

"My point is that due to the way some of these laws are written even a small hobby website might do things that the law regulates." And kstrauser's point is th

"My point is that due to the way some of these laws are written even a small hobby website might do things that the law regulates." And kstrauser's point is that, due to the way this law is written, by definition nothing their small, non-profit site does can ever be regulated by this law.

tzs 5y ago
My point is that because some privacy laws are written so that they affect such sites (GDPR for example), it is a good idea for sites to try to be aware of new privacy laws so they can check if those laws are that kind of law. If they are not, then when someone makes a request under that new law it is just a matter then of responding with a pre-canned response explaining that the law does not apply instead of being a panic and/or stress inducing incident. And someone will eventually make such a request. Users don't check details. They just know that their jurisdiction has a privacy law and under it they can request things. They don't check to first to verify the site meets the law's thresholds for applicability or is under the law's jurisdiction. If the new law does apply to your site, same idea. You want to find that out and figure out how to deal with it before you get a request instead of your first request being a scramble to comply. Note that I'm not saying that kstrauser mishandled anything. I think that most of us overlooked that small non-profit hobbyist sites needed to keep an eye on the privacy law landscape. Kstrauser happened to be the unlucky person who fate chose to use as an example of how annoying it can be too have to figure out on short notice where your site stands as far as a given law goes, even if the answer turns out to be "that law doesn't apply to my site".
- azernik 5y ago
  You're acting like this is an impersonal, natural event. It isn't. Fate didn't choose kstrauser. An irresponsible academic sent an email blast to people who were not relevant to his study, without making even token efforts to filter things down.

tzs 5y ago

My point is that because some privacy laws are written so that they affect such sites (GDPR for example), it is a good idea for sites to try to be aware of new privacy laws so they can check if those laws are that kind of law. If they are not, then when someone makes a request under that new law it is just a matter then of responding with a pre-canned response explaining that the law does not apply instead of being a panic and/or stress inducing incident. And someone will eventually make such a request. Users don't check details. They just know that their jurisdiction has a privacy law and under it they can request things. They don't check to first to verify the site meets the law's thresholds for applicability or is under the law's jurisdiction. If the new law does apply to your site, same idea. You want to find that out and figure out how to deal with it before you get a request instead of your first request being a scramble to comply. Note that I'm not saying that kstrauser mishandled anything. I think that most of us overlooked that small non-profit hobbyist sites needed to keep an eye on the privacy law landscape. Kstrauser happened to be the unlucky person who fate chose to use as an example of how annoying it can be too have to figure out on short notice where your site stands as far as a given law goes, even if the answer turns out to be "that law doesn't apply to my site".

azernik 5y ago
You're acting like this is an impersonal, natural event. It isn't. Fate didn't choose kstrauser. An irresponsible academic sent an email blast to people who were not relevant to his study, without making even token efforts to filter things down.