12 ms·

What's the end goal of all this? Information (data) technology has essentially left europe The EU is never held accountable for the laws they make, and i m not

What's the end goal of all this? Information (data) technology has essentially left europe The EU is never held accountable for the laws they make, and i m not aware with them consulting with local entrepreneurs. It seems only lobbyists and politicians have access

no_time 5y ago
>Tech has essentially left europe If your "Tech" can't work without siphoning up and selling people's personal data to the highest bidder, Good.
- kmlx 5y ago
  > If your "Tech" can't work without siphoning up and selling people's personal data to the highest bidder, Good. Not good, not good at all. The idea is to find a common ground, not to push potentially innovative businesses and people to the rest of the planet.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Not every potential innovation's cost is acceptable. This draws a line.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    If we outlaw {child slave labour/people trafficing/theft/explotation/etc} it will just push potential businesses to another country and we will lose out on the innovation. Instead of locking your front door you should find common ground with the local thiefs so they only steal half your stuff, smash the old TV not the new one, only beat you half way dead and only kill one of your children. Anything less would just be undermining the fantastic innovation potential in your local home invasion and robbery sector.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      The fact that you need to equate something most people find quite harmless (data acquisition for targeted ads) with child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder only points out how weak your argument is.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        There are many people on the timeline of human history that believe that child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder are all harmless. These are all things that have been commonplace at various points in history. If you are in an area with any population density you are sat within a few miles of more people that have committed or are currently committing those acts, with no regret at all, than there are CEO's of companies that do data acquisition for targeted ads.
        nickpp 5y ago
        Do you actually believe that child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder are equivalent to data acquisition for targeted ads?
        JAlexoid 5y ago
        It's called hypoerbole and kmix's position is laughable. No one is banning ads, targeted ads or data collection.
      - zwaps 5y ago
        All of these things are illegal for good reason, they harm people. But, the argument is simple: In all these cases businesses do something illegal and therefore either need to be stopped, or stop existing. People who use this tech are criminals, and everyone knows it. Everyone has known it, even in the US. Look at how many people use ad blockers and anti tracking scripts. It is time to stop allowing literal criminals at tech companies to repeatedly break the law and face no consequences whatsoever. It has been going on for years, and it needs to be fought just like any of the other horrible things.
  - no_time 5y ago
    This is the common ground. My ideal would be banning all forms of personalized advertisement and banning the sale of sensitive medical information.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    Governments have a duty to protect the human rights of their citizens, and that includes privacy. Innovation is not always a good thing - Think of it as a vector and not a scalar. Increasing the magnitude of innovation would be bad if the direction of innovation is harmful.
    - NotVerstappen 5y ago
      Very well put. In that framing, it is often the case that US-led "capitalism-at-any-cost" over-indexes on scaling the magnitude of the vector while leaving the direction free to be influenced by other entities. The EU approach is to disregard the magnitude while keeping tighter bounds on the direction. I'd like to think that bodes well for the UK, since we historically have trodden the middle ground between both camps - but I'm sure we'll find some way of fucking it up and gaining neither magnitude nor direction.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      > Innovation is not always a good thing Maybe so, but you do not get to decide which innovation is good and which is bad. People do. And most of us do not give a flying monkey about data companies collect about us. What's the worst they will do: better ads?! We do care about privacy from governments though, but that is never legislated, is there?
      - soco 5y ago
        And it is exactly the people of Austria who elected those politicians who enacted the laws which all innovating companies must respect. So apparently the people of Austria DO give a flying monkey about this topic.
      - M2Ys4U 5y ago
        >Maybe so, but you do not get to decide which innovation is good and which is bad. I didn't decide, the European Parliament decided. And they made the decision to protect our (collective and individual) human rights. >We do care about privacy from governments though, but that is never legislated, is there? Privacy from governments is exactly what this case is about. The US government can - in secret, with practically non-existent oversight, and absolutely no means of redress - simply take personal data sent from the EU to the US. Because of this, the US is not deemed to have "equivalent protection" to the GDPR and thus transfer of personal data from the EU to the US is banned (unless it's made technically impossible for the US entity to comply with an order from the US government to access it).
- Zerverus 5y ago
  Just let the patsies add it to the blockchain themselves, give them tales of web3 ;)
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Then how do they make money? Everything is a subscription service? Cable TV 2.0? Can you use the internet normally by avoiding these services? No Google, no YouTube, no Windows, no Android etc. Right now we basically get the products of the internet for free. If you kill advertising as monetization you don't have those free services anymore. And if you have to pay for everything then you'll leave even more of a trail on what you did. It just might not be accessible to corporations, but it'll still exist.
  - M2Ys4U 5y ago
    Banning behavioural advertising is not the same thing as banning advertising in its entirety. Newspapers, for example, survived for centuries on a mixture of subscriptions and advertising before they could snoop on their readers to decide which ads to show. TV and radio advertising right now works as a funding model without syphoning personal data.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      TV, radio, and newspaper ads are also local. They do not have international reach. Would ads be useful to you in Russian or Chinese? Would the company paying for the ads find it useful that you get those ads? No, they wouldn't, but on the internet without data everyone would get all of the ads.
      - labawi 5y ago
        You don't need to snoop on your visitors to choose a language. Choosing an ad based on browser preferred language or geoip is not behavioral advertising. It is behavioral advertising when you record the data, when you track the user and show your ad on a site with the lowest bid instead of the relevant site that your target audience originally visited. You don't need the persons purchasing history, sex, marital status, age, ethnicity, interests, political orientation, a list of visited sites and all data you can get your hands on, to choose a language.
  - no_time 5y ago
    >Windows lol most people pay money for windows (even against their will if they want to buy a laptop for example) and still get ads and telemetry cranked to the max. What's up with that? >Android Another bad example. In a less shitty world where the majority share of the global mobile OS duopoly isn't owned by a glorified surveillance company, the support of a device would be covered by, and only by the sale price of the device. Which wouldn't be such a huge cost if Android better had engineered HAL and better standards so every device could update from the same repo tree. >if you have to pay for everything then you'll leave even more of a trail on what you did. This is my problem with Kagi[0](frequently posted here). This is more of the fault of the current global payment infrastructure than any ordinary tech company's. But if you think that the current ad infested browsing experience makes you any more private I have bad news for you. Namely fingerprintJS[1]. You might be asking what are my solution's to these problems. And my answer is that I have no idea. The only thing I know is that I'm seriously jaded with the current {mono,duo}poly ridden state of tech. [0]: https://kagi.com/ https://kagi.com/ (currently throwing internal server error lol) [1]: https://fingerprintjs.com/ https://fingerprintjs.com/
azernik 5y ago
Changing the law to suit "local entrepreneurs" is, politically, seen as the same thing as changing it to suit any other lobbyist. The software industry's interests are not seen as politically "cleaner" than those of any other industry.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  Extending laws to apply to all in the market is not "favoring local entrepreneurs".
  - azernik 5y ago
    The parent comment used those exact words ("consulting with local entrepeneurs") as a reason not to implement GDPR. I was pointing out that this is did not convey the clean-and-efficient image they had in mind when framed that in opposition to lobbyists.
WhatsName 5y ago
Not sure, if it's bias due to being part of the netsec bubble, but there is a growing market of privacy as a feature. Also in the wake of countless breaches companies get more aware of how and where the data is stored. If your product isn't addressing this, you're probably at a growing competitive disadvantage.
iqanq 5y ago
>The EU is never held accountable for the laws they make Of course it is. The tech sector is practically non-existant here, and if something works out, they leave for the US. Isn't that what being accountable is?
- pmlnr 5y ago
  The shortsighted definition of "tech sector" of some people is hilarious.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Here in Europe we are running software tools and platforms written in the US, owned by USA-companies, on hardware designed in the US. And the people who created all that include lots of bright ex-Europeans. What do you find hilarious about that?
    - pmlnr 5y ago
      ... Same for hardware. Europe is quite big on embedded, think of Siemens just as an example.
    - azernik 5y ago
      And all those American tools would not work without East Asian (mostly Taiwanese and South Korean) hardware. Tech is global, and that doesn't mean every part of the industry is everywhere.
    - anthk 5y ago
      Without some European hardware the US would do nothing.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        True, we're not completely out of the loop. But let's not fool ourselves: we are far from running the show. And with an attitude like this we will be left watching how progress and innovation will keep coming from the US, driven by our own best and brightest emigrated there.

no_time 5y ago

>Tech has essentially left europe If your "Tech" can't work without siphoning up and selling people's personal data to the highest bidder, Good.

kmlx 5y ago
> If your "Tech" can't work without siphoning up and selling people's personal data to the highest bidder, Good. Not good, not good at all. The idea is to find a common ground, not to push potentially innovative businesses and people to the rest of the planet.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  Not every potential innovation's cost is acceptable. This draws a line.
- blitzar 5y ago
  If we outlaw {child slave labour/people trafficing/theft/explotation/etc} it will just push potential businesses to another country and we will lose out on the innovation. Instead of locking your front door you should find common ground with the local thiefs so they only steal half your stuff, smash the old TV not the new one, only beat you half way dead and only kill one of your children. Anything less would just be undermining the fantastic innovation potential in your local home invasion and robbery sector.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    The fact that you need to equate something most people find quite harmless (data acquisition for targeted ads) with child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder only points out how weak your argument is.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      There are many people on the timeline of human history that believe that child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder are all harmless. These are all things that have been commonplace at various points in history. If you are in an area with any population density you are sat within a few miles of more people that have committed or are currently committing those acts, with no regret at all, than there are CEO's of companies that do data acquisition for targeted ads.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Do you actually believe that child slave labor, trafficking, robbery and murder are equivalent to data acquisition for targeted ads?
        JAlexoid 5y ago
        It's called hypoerbole and kmix's position is laughable. No one is banning ads, targeted ads or data collection.
    - zwaps 5y ago
      All of these things are illegal for good reason, they harm people. But, the argument is simple: In all these cases businesses do something illegal and therefore either need to be stopped, or stop existing. People who use this tech are criminals, and everyone knows it. Everyone has known it, even in the US. Look at how many people use ad blockers and anti tracking scripts. It is time to stop allowing literal criminals at tech companies to repeatedly break the law and face no consequences whatsoever. It has been going on for years, and it needs to be fought just like any of the other horrible things.
- no_time 5y ago
  This is the common ground. My ideal would be banning all forms of personalized advertisement and banning the sale of sensitive medical information.
- M2Ys4U 5y ago
  Governments have a duty to protect the human rights of their citizens, and that includes privacy. Innovation is not always a good thing - Think of it as a vector and not a scalar. Increasing the magnitude of innovation would be bad if the direction of innovation is harmful.
  - NotVerstappen 5y ago
    Very well put. In that framing, it is often the case that US-led "capitalism-at-any-cost" over-indexes on scaling the magnitude of the vector while leaving the direction free to be influenced by other entities. The EU approach is to disregard the magnitude while keeping tighter bounds on the direction. I'd like to think that bodes well for the UK, since we historically have trodden the middle ground between both camps - but I'm sure we'll find some way of fucking it up and gaining neither magnitude nor direction.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > Innovation is not always a good thing Maybe so, but you do not get to decide which innovation is good and which is bad. People do. And most of us do not give a flying monkey about data companies collect about us. What's the worst they will do: better ads?! We do care about privacy from governments though, but that is never legislated, is there?
    - soco 5y ago
      And it is exactly the people of Austria who elected those politicians who enacted the laws which all innovating companies must respect. So apparently the people of Austria DO give a flying monkey about this topic.
    - M2Ys4U 5y ago
      >Maybe so, but you do not get to decide which innovation is good and which is bad. I didn't decide, the European Parliament decided. And they made the decision to protect our (collective and individual) human rights. >We do care about privacy from governments though, but that is never legislated, is there? Privacy from governments is exactly what this case is about. The US government can - in secret, with practically non-existent oversight, and absolutely no means of redress - simply take personal data sent from the EU to the US. Because of this, the US is not deemed to have "equivalent protection" to the GDPR and thus transfer of personal data from the EU to the US is banned (unless it's made technically impossible for the US entity to comply with an order from the US government to access it).
Zerverus 5y ago
Just let the patsies add it to the blockchain themselves, give them tales of web3 ;)
Aerroon 5y ago
Then how do they make money? Everything is a subscription service? Cable TV 2.0? Can you use the internet normally by avoiding these services? No Google, no YouTube, no Windows, no Android etc. Right now we basically get the products of the internet for free. If you kill advertising as monetization you don't have those free services anymore. And if you have to pay for everything then you'll leave even more of a trail on what you did. It just might not be accessible to corporations, but it'll still exist.
- M2Ys4U 5y ago
  Banning behavioural advertising is not the same thing as banning advertising in its entirety. Newspapers, for example, survived for centuries on a mixture of subscriptions and advertising before they could snoop on their readers to decide which ads to show. TV and radio advertising right now works as a funding model without syphoning personal data.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    TV, radio, and newspaper ads are also local. They do not have international reach. Would ads be useful to you in Russian or Chinese? Would the company paying for the ads find it useful that you get those ads? No, they wouldn't, but on the internet without data everyone would get all of the ads.
    - labawi 5y ago
      You don't need to snoop on your visitors to choose a language. Choosing an ad based on browser preferred language or geoip is not behavioral advertising. It is behavioral advertising when you record the data, when you track the user and show your ad on a site with the lowest bid instead of the relevant site that your target audience originally visited. You don't need the persons purchasing history, sex, marital status, age, ethnicity, interests, political orientation, a list of visited sites and all data you can get your hands on, to choose a language.
- no_time 5y ago
  >Windows lol most people pay money for windows (even against their will if they want to buy a laptop for example) and still get ads and telemetry cranked to the max. What's up with that? >Android Another bad example. In a less shitty world where the majority share of the global mobile OS duopoly isn't owned by a glorified surveillance company, the support of a device would be covered by, and only by the sale price of the device. Which wouldn't be such a huge cost if Android better had engineered HAL and better standards so every device could update from the same repo tree. >if you have to pay for everything then you'll leave even more of a trail on what you did. This is my problem with Kagi[0](frequently posted here). This is more of the fault of the current global payment infrastructure than any ordinary tech company's. But if you think that the current ad infested browsing experience makes you any more private I have bad news for you. Namely fingerprintJS[1]. You might be asking what are my solution's to these problems. And my answer is that I have no idea. The only thing I know is that I'm seriously jaded with the current {mono,duo}poly ridden state of tech. [0]: https://kagi.com/ https://kagi.com/ (currently throwing internal server error lol) [1]: https://fingerprintjs.com/ https://fingerprintjs.com/

azernik 5y ago

Changing the law to suit "local entrepreneurs" is, politically, seen as the same thing as changing it to suit any other lobbyist. The software industry's interests are not seen as politically "cleaner" than those of any other industry.

JAlexoid 5y ago
Extending laws to apply to all in the market is not "favoring local entrepreneurs".
- azernik 5y ago
  The parent comment used those exact words ("consulting with local entrepeneurs") as a reason not to implement GDPR. I was pointing out that this is did not convey the clean-and-efficient image they had in mind when framed that in opposition to lobbyists.

WhatsName 5y ago

Not sure, if it's bias due to being part of the netsec bubble, but there is a growing market of privacy as a feature. Also in the wake of countless breaches companies get more aware of how and where the data is stored. If your product isn't addressing this, you're probably at a growing competitive disadvantage.

iqanq 5y ago

>The EU is never held accountable for the laws they make Of course it is. The tech sector is practically non-existant here, and if something works out, they leave for the US. Isn't that what being accountable is?

pmlnr 5y ago
The shortsighted definition of "tech sector" of some people is hilarious.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Here in Europe we are running software tools and platforms written in the US, owned by USA-companies, on hardware designed in the US. And the people who created all that include lots of bright ex-Europeans. What do you find hilarious about that?
  - pmlnr 5y ago
    ... Same for hardware. Europe is quite big on embedded, think of Siemens just as an example.
  - azernik 5y ago
    And all those American tools would not work without East Asian (mostly Taiwanese and South Korean) hardware. Tech is global, and that doesn't mean every part of the industry is everywhere.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Without some European hardware the US would do nothing.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      True, we're not completely out of the loop. But let's not fool ourselves: we are far from running the show. And with an attitude like this we will be left watching how progress and innovation will keep coming from the US, driven by our own best and brightest emigrated there.