5 ms·

You mean that stopping abusing just a subset of visitors costs a lot to implement. Stopping abusing everyone is easy, but of course they don't want to do that.

by rlpb 4y ago

avalys 4y ago
[flagged]
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > socialist Oh, please.
  - ciupicri 4y ago
    Come on, the EUSSR entry [1] in the Urban Dictionary is not for nothing. There's tons of regulations in various areas: tobacco, cinnamon, phone chargers, etc as if the citizens can't decide for themselves and bureaucrats know better. You and others might like these rules, but this doesn't make the European Union less socialist. [1]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=EUSSR https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=EUSSR
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      The urban dictionary is not exactly a source of authority, it merely documents usage without bestowing legitimacy on such usage. Regulations do not imply socialism.
      - ciupicri 4y ago
        EU deciding for me that I can't smoke cherry flavored cigarettes is in the best case socialism and in the worst case dictatorship. All in the name of protecting teenagers from the dangers of smoking if I'm not mistaking, similar to this GDPR crap for websites. Also how about bank accounts for everyone including the poor? Is this socialist enough for you?
        jacquesm 4y ago
        USA deciding I can't gamble away my money on line is in the best case socialism and in the worst case dictatorship. All in the name of protecting people from the dangers of gambling if I'm not mistaken, similar to COPPA crap for websites. Really, this kind of argument is utterly ridiculous, and beneath HN. If you are utterly clueless about what socialism is then why advertise it like that instead of reading up a bit?
margalabargala 4y ago
When a website is below a certain size, it's likely that they don't think it's worth the resources required to even determine whether they're abusing visitors. It's not "we're abusing people so we're banning the people it's illegal to abuse", it's "we don't know if what we're doing falls under the definition of what's considered abuse, and the people it's illegal to abuse are not part of our market, so this is the shortest-path to guaranteeing we don't accidentally do anything illegal". If it were some very large international website, it could more reasonably considered an admission of guilt, but for a small regional newspaper I don't think it is.
googlryas 4y ago
Can you inform me how this site is abusing people who it allows to access it? And what's your knowledge of their code stack and backends?
- rlpb 4y ago
  Either: 1) They aren't collecting personally identifiable information, and therefore don't fall within the scope of the GDPR, and therefore the cost of compliance is virtually nil or: 2) They are collecting personally identifiable information. For just visiting their site, that's abuse. > And what's your knowledge of their code stack and backends? Not relevant.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I don't think there is an agreed upon definition of "personally identifiable information" at the edges, therefore I doubt that the GDPR got it right. For example, when the RIAA was suing everyone for pirating music...it was claimed by the tech community that an IP address is not enough to personally identify someone for a lawsuit. But the GDPR claims that IP addresses are PII. Which is correct? Our choices are live in a world where website operators can't log an IP address, but the RIAA or anybody can use an IP address to target someone for a lawsuit? Or we can live in a world where website operators can log an IP address, but the RIAA can't use an IP address to target someone for a lawsuit. And your knowledge of their backend is relevant, because you made a claim about its behavior - specifically that it would be easy to stop abuse for everyone. But what if parts of their system rely on, say, a logged IP address to aggregate some statistic that is important for the business folk? It might require reworking a large portion of their backend if they need to derive this non-abusive information in a different manner.
avalys 4y ago
Ok, what’s the easy solution for this ad-supported, free website for a local newspaper to stop “abusing” everyone?
- robonerd 4y ago
  Local newspapers don't need cookies to sell ads.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Going through the hassle of ensuring compliance, even if you’re 99% sure you’re fully compliant, isn’t worth it if none of your target market is European. Blocking is the rational move. (The alternative is ignoring GDPR, which most sites in this position do.)

You mean that stopping abusing just a subset of visitors costs a lot to implement. Stopping abusing everyone is easy, but of course they don't want to do that.

by rlpb 4y ago

You mean that stopping abusing just a subset of visitors costs a lot to implement. Stopping abusing everyone is easy, but of course they don't want to do that.

avalys 4y ago

[flagged]

jacquesm 4y ago
> socialist Oh, please.
- ciupicri 4y ago
  Come on, the EUSSR entry [1] in the Urban Dictionary is not for nothing. There's tons of regulations in various areas: tobacco, cinnamon, phone chargers, etc as if the citizens can't decide for themselves and bureaucrats know better. You and others might like these rules, but this doesn't make the European Union less socialist. [1]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=EUSSR https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=EUSSR
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The urban dictionary is not exactly a source of authority, it merely documents usage without bestowing legitimacy on such usage. Regulations do not imply socialism.
    - ciupicri 4y ago
      EU deciding for me that I can't smoke cherry flavored cigarettes is in the best case socialism and in the worst case dictatorship. All in the name of protecting teenagers from the dangers of smoking if I'm not mistaking, similar to this GDPR crap for websites. Also how about bank accounts for everyone including the poor? Is this socialist enough for you?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        USA deciding I can't gamble away my money on line is in the best case socialism and in the worst case dictatorship. All in the name of protecting people from the dangers of gambling if I'm not mistaken, similar to COPPA crap for websites. Really, this kind of argument is utterly ridiculous, and beneath HN. If you are utterly clueless about what socialism is then why advertise it like that instead of reading up a bit?

margalabargala 4y ago

When a website is below a certain size, it's likely that they don't think it's worth the resources required to even determine whether they're abusing visitors. It's not "we're abusing people so we're banning the people it's illegal to abuse", it's "we don't know if what we're doing falls under the definition of what's considered abuse, and the people it's illegal to abuse are not part of our market, so this is the shortest-path to guaranteeing we don't accidentally do anything illegal". If it were some very large international website, it could more reasonably considered an admission of guilt, but for a small regional newspaper I don't think it is.

googlryas 4y ago

Can you inform me how this site is abusing people who it allows to access it? And what's your knowledge of their code stack and backends?

rlpb 4y ago
Either: 1) They aren't collecting personally identifiable information, and therefore don't fall within the scope of the GDPR, and therefore the cost of compliance is virtually nil or: 2) They are collecting personally identifiable information. For just visiting their site, that's abuse. > And what's your knowledge of their code stack and backends? Not relevant.
- googlryas 4y ago
  I don't think there is an agreed upon definition of "personally identifiable information" at the edges, therefore I doubt that the GDPR got it right. For example, when the RIAA was suing everyone for pirating music...it was claimed by the tech community that an IP address is not enough to personally identify someone for a lawsuit. But the GDPR claims that IP addresses are PII. Which is correct? Our choices are live in a world where website operators can't log an IP address, but the RIAA or anybody can use an IP address to target someone for a lawsuit? Or we can live in a world where website operators can log an IP address, but the RIAA can't use an IP address to target someone for a lawsuit. And your knowledge of their backend is relevant, because you made a claim about its behavior - specifically that it would be easy to stop abuse for everyone. But what if parts of their system rely on, say, a logged IP address to aggregate some statistic that is important for the business folk? It might require reworking a large portion of their backend if they need to derive this non-abusive information in a different manner.

avalys 4y ago

Ok, what’s the easy solution for this ad-supported, free website for a local newspaper to stop “abusing” everyone?

robonerd 4y ago
Local newspapers don't need cookies to sell ads.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Going through the hassle of ensuring compliance, even if you’re 99% sure you’re fully compliant, isn’t worth it if none of your target market is European. Blocking is the rational move. (The alternative is ignoring GDPR, which most sites in this position do.)