3 ms·

This is an excellent quote that reflects a notable share of opinions that I see in the comments here on HN whenever the GDPR is discussed: > Hardly any other a

This is an excellent quote that reflects a notable share of opinions that I see in the comments here on HN whenever the GDPR is discussed: > Hardly any other area of law is politicized to that extent – at least I have never heard that building or tax codes were openly ignored with the argument that compliance would “undermine the business model” of a company. The privacy bubble accepts such narratives as a legitimate argument.

solarkraft 4y ago
Nah, this type of argument is often brought up once someone (with a lobby) actually has to change their ways to comply. Safety features would make cars 3x as expensive, nobody in the world could feasibly implement such radical emissions standards ... All the time. It's just important to recognize this type of argument as pointless.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> compliance would “undermine the business model” of a company This is a disingenuous framing of the argument as it commonly appears on HN, sometimes by me. The complaint isn't with respect to what the rules permit and prohibit. (Some people complain about that, but it's not the common mode.) It's the enforcement mechanism. Complaint initiated. Multi-forum and portable. Imprecise on implementation details. Those factors make compliance, even for someone looking to do everything right, expensive. Which raises barriers to entry. (And creates room for mischief.) The closest similar thing in the U.S. is our approach to securities regulation. Complaint initiated. Each state has its own forum. Each side can complain and defend in different forums and then expensively argue over arcane rules for forum selection. Details hashed out through enforcement actions versus ex ante published rules. Now imagine there was no SEC corralling the mess. That's GDPR.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  When you put it that way, it does sound pretty onerous...
- ckastner 4y ago
  I have to disagree with that. I'd wager that even if with a hypothetical perfect GDPR, you'd still have the major advertisers fighting it tooth and nail. Because when "you're the not the customer, you're the product" applies, then the GDPR does effectively undermine the business model. Targeted advertising appears to be immensely profitable; raising boundaries on how you process subject's data, and how/to what extent you profile them, cuts into those profits. The GDPR recognized the protection of PII as a fundamental right. The way I read the argument I quoted, the problem is not that e.g. Facebook would like to comply with the GDPR but cannot do so for e.g. imprecise implementation details. The problem is the GDPR significantly impairs Facebook's ability to generate revenue. And to that end, it appears that Facebook is indeed "openly ignoring" the GDPR to some extent, at least from what I recall from the ongoing complaints by NOYB and others. [To clarify, I don't disagree with your particular argument; on the contrary, the flaws you pointed out are evident. I just don't think that is was the argument being made here.]
InfiniteRand 4y ago
That's a very strange argument by the OP, there are massive arguments about whether/how building codes and zoning laws undermine the ability of developers to build new housing.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Arguments yes, but companies still comply at the end of the day. With GDPR, they simply don't, with no punishment.

solarkraft 4y ago

Nah, this type of argument is often brought up once someone (with a lobby) actually has to change their ways to comply. Safety features would make cars 3x as expensive, nobody in the world could feasibly implement such radical emissions standards ... All the time. It's just important to recognize this type of argument as pointless.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> compliance would “undermine the business model” of a company This is a disingenuous framing of the argument as it commonly appears on HN, sometimes by me. The complaint isn't with respect to what the rules permit and prohibit. (Some people complain about that, but it's not the common mode.) It's the enforcement mechanism. Complaint initiated. Multi-forum and portable. Imprecise on implementation details. Those factors make compliance, even for someone looking to do everything right, expensive. Which raises barriers to entry. (And creates room for mischief.) The closest similar thing in the U.S. is our approach to securities regulation. Complaint initiated. Each state has its own forum. Each side can complain and defend in different forums and then expensively argue over arcane rules for forum selection. Details hashed out through enforcement actions versus ex ante published rules. Now imagine there was no SEC corralling the mess. That's GDPR.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
When you put it that way, it does sound pretty onerous...
ckastner 4y ago
I have to disagree with that. I'd wager that even if with a hypothetical perfect GDPR, you'd still have the major advertisers fighting it tooth and nail. Because when "you're the not the customer, you're the product" applies, then the GDPR does effectively undermine the business model. Targeted advertising appears to be immensely profitable; raising boundaries on how you process subject's data, and how/to what extent you profile them, cuts into those profits. The GDPR recognized the protection of PII as a fundamental right. The way I read the argument I quoted, the problem is not that e.g. Facebook would like to comply with the GDPR but cannot do so for e.g. imprecise implementation details. The problem is the GDPR significantly impairs Facebook's ability to generate revenue. And to that end, it appears that Facebook is indeed "openly ignoring" the GDPR to some extent, at least from what I recall from the ongoing complaints by NOYB and others. [To clarify, I don't disagree with your particular argument; on the contrary, the flaws you pointed out are evident. I just don't think that is was the argument being made here.]

InfiniteRand 4y ago

That's a very strange argument by the OP, there are massive arguments about whether/how building codes and zoning laws undermine the ability of developers to build new housing.

franga2000 4y ago
Arguments yes, but companies still comply at the end of the day. With GDPR, they simply don't, with no punishment.