7 ms·

Alternate headline: Web site at www.kdsk.com seemingly shuts out European visitors with http/403 instead of dealing with EU data protection act.

stickfigure 5y ago
Or just ignoring it, which seems like it would make more sense for a local news station?
littlecranky67 5y ago
I'd expect a least a better error code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to death.
kasey_junk 5y ago
“Website reporting on unintended consequences of added compliance costs dealing with same costs.” Film at 11.
- olliej 5y ago
  Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's just all these companies have become obsessed with providing surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that than not. Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance project. Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them time and money. It's not because they were sending all our data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    I’ve been in the room when a very expensive lawyer couldn’t reliably predict if an almost brochureware website was compliant because the multi-tenant web server it was sitting behind was logging IP addresses for anti-abuse purposes. Now it’s my belief that it was compliant but guess what is less risky than trusting my beliefs? Blocking European access. You can wish GDPR doesn’t have compliance costs but that doesn’t make it true.
  - dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
    It does cost to comply with the GDPR. You lose access to user tracking (which is valuable for a business), have to house user data in a specific manner and make sure EU citizens don't get their PII transferred out of Europe. Somebody has to make these changes, and nobody does stuff for a company for free.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    What a lie. I frankly don't even think the EU could tell you what is and isn't OK. And tons of stuff gets you in trouble, up and downstream. Ie, using a CDN that is logging IP addresses, operating behind an abuse filter that does tracking / ip logging for anti-abuse stuff without doing all the explicit opt in stuff. Obviously things like using a hosted CDN resource (font etc etc) / or tweet embeds. Figuring out which users are EU users, responding to GDPR requests for data and validating those and the list goes on.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    Complying with anything costs money.
jonathantf2 5y ago
Better than "Our European visitors are important to us"

stickfigure 5y ago

Or just ignoring it, which seems like it would make more sense for a local news station?

littlecranky67 5y ago

I'd expect a least a better error code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to death.

kasey_junk 5y ago

“Website reporting on unintended consequences of added compliance costs dealing with same costs.” Film at 11.

olliej 5y ago
Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's just all these companies have become obsessed with providing surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that than not. Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance project. Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them time and money. It's not because they were sending all our data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  I’ve been in the room when a very expensive lawyer couldn’t reliably predict if an almost brochureware website was compliant because the multi-tenant web server it was sitting behind was logging IP addresses for anti-abuse purposes. Now it’s my belief that it was compliant but guess what is less risky than trusting my beliefs? Blocking European access. You can wish GDPR doesn’t have compliance costs but that doesn’t make it true.
- dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
  It does cost to comply with the GDPR. You lose access to user tracking (which is valuable for a business), have to house user data in a specific manner and make sure EU citizens don't get their PII transferred out of Europe. Somebody has to make these changes, and nobody does stuff for a company for free.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  What a lie. I frankly don't even think the EU could tell you what is and isn't OK. And tons of stuff gets you in trouble, up and downstream. Ie, using a CDN that is logging IP addresses, operating behind an abuse filter that does tracking / ip logging for anti-abuse stuff without doing all the explicit opt in stuff. Obviously things like using a hosted CDN resource (font etc etc) / or tweet embeds. Figuring out which users are EU users, responding to GDPR requests for data and validating those and the list goes on.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  Complying with anything costs money.

jonathantf2 5y ago

Better than "Our European visitors are important to us"