4 ms·

I wish GDPR compliance would have been opt-in. For example, a GDPR compliant website could have sent a custom header indicating compliance, which the browser co

I wish GDPR compliance would have been opt-in. For example, a GDPR compliant website could have sent a custom header indicating compliance, which the browser could have displayed in the address bar (a bit like HTTPS). Consumers would then have been free make the decision to not use websites which aren't GDPR compliant. Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block any non GDPR compliant website.

eropple 4y ago
> Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block any non GDPR compliant website. It may not be your intent, but defaults matter and what you're wishing for here is de-facto scuttling of the GDPR.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites? If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites? False premise. Users simply aren't aware, but once they learn about it, they become concerned, > If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy? That's a really weird argument. Anyway, that's not the case.
closewith 4y ago
Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed to opt out of anti-fraud legislation? Anti-money laundering? Human rights protections?
- olalonde 4y ago
  No, just GDPR? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation but I do see a reason why a user might want to access the non-GDPR web.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    How would you write such a law? You can't make exceptions based on what's convenient for some business. Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products? > ? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation To commit frauds, for example?
    - olalonde 4y ago
      > Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products? I also believe that should be opt-in. > To commit frauds, for example? Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > I also believe that should be opt-in. But that is irrelevant, we European citizens are happy to have it. And actually fought to have it. It's a consumer protection law, what you want is consumers with less or no protections. > Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting. I'm quite sure the majority of users visiting a website that hosts GA are giving away their data unwillingly. Would you opt-in theft too?
        olalonde 4y ago
        > It's a consumer protection law, what you want is consumers with less or no protections. Yes, indeed. I don't believe the government should mandate specific protections consumers should receive, because it just serves to reduce consumer options. And this is also why I wish GDPR would have been opt in, giving more options to consumers. For example, in a world with no government mandated "2 year warranty", some manufacturers would offer a product with "2 year warranty" and some other manufacturers would offer the same product "without warranty", but at a lower price. Consumers would then be free to chose if they want to pay the cheaper price without warranty or the higher price with the warranty. There are two options for consumers in this world whereas in the world with mandated warranty, only the "higher price with warranty" option is available. It's the same with GDPR, GDPR compliance has a cost. Some websites have started banning EU IPs for that reason. Of course, the above assumes that consumers are not mislead and that transactions are voluntary. Therefore, I do think there should be laws against fraud, theft, misrepresentation, etc.
eulenteufel 4y ago
The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle. This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse. The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now and it's good and healthy that corporations get push back for not respecting privacy.
- kmlx 4y ago
  > This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore wouldn’t the market react?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    The market would only react if people were actually aware of the privacy violations. This is what the GDPR is trying to address by making data processing require informed consent. The vast majority of people (some even on HN) have absolutely no clue how advanced the stalking actually is. You hear every so often these anecdotes about people suspecting Facebook of listening to them; it's actually more creepy that the tracking is advanced enough to successfully infer conversations without actually listening in.

eropple 4y ago

> Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block any non GDPR compliant website. It may not be your intent, but defaults matter and what you're wishing for here is de-facto scuttling of the GDPR.

olalonde 4y ago
Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites? If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites? False premise. Users simply aren't aware, but once they learn about it, they become concerned, > If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy? That's a really weird argument. Anyway, that's not the case.

closewith 4y ago

Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed to opt out of anti-fraud legislation? Anti-money laundering? Human rights protections?

olalonde 4y ago
No, just GDPR? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation but I do see a reason why a user might want to access the non-GDPR web.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  How would you write such a law? You can't make exceptions based on what's convenient for some business. Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products? > ? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation To commit frauds, for example?
  - olalonde 4y ago
    > Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products? I also believe that should be opt-in. > To commit frauds, for example? Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > I also believe that should be opt-in. But that is irrelevant, we European citizens are happy to have it. And actually fought to have it. It's a consumer protection law, what you want is consumers with less or no protections. > Fraud implies an unwilling party, a victim. Not comparable at all to what I'm suggesting. I'm quite sure the majority of users visiting a website that hosts GA are giving away their data unwillingly. Would you opt-in theft too?
      - olalonde 4y ago
        > It's a consumer protection law, what you want is consumers with less or no protections. Yes, indeed. I don't believe the government should mandate specific protections consumers should receive, because it just serves to reduce consumer options. And this is also why I wish GDPR would have been opt in, giving more options to consumers. For example, in a world with no government mandated "2 year warranty", some manufacturers would offer a product with "2 year warranty" and some other manufacturers would offer the same product "without warranty", but at a lower price. Consumers would then be free to chose if they want to pay the cheaper price without warranty or the higher price with the warranty. There are two options for consumers in this world whereas in the world with mandated warranty, only the "higher price with warranty" option is available. It's the same with GDPR, GDPR compliance has a cost. Some websites have started banning EU IPs for that reason. Of course, the above assumes that consumers are not mislead and that transactions are voluntary. Therefore, I do think there should be laws against fraud, theft, misrepresentation, etc.

eulenteufel 4y ago

The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle. This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse. The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now and it's good and healthy that corporations get push back for not respecting privacy.

kmlx 4y ago
> This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore wouldn’t the market react?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  The market would only react if people were actually aware of the privacy violations. This is what the GDPR is trying to address by making data processing require informed consent. The vast majority of people (some even on HN) have absolutely no clue how advanced the stalking actually is. You hear every so often these anecdotes about people suspecting Facebook of listening to them; it's actually more creepy that the tracking is advanced enough to successfully infer conversations without actually listening in.