4 ms·
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't involved in much risk analysis? Whether or not someone has already been fined (even within your constra
by ziddoap 4y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't involved in much risk analysis?
Whether or not someone has already been fined (even within your constraints) influences the risk decision, but it does not remove the risk.
Since there is still risk, it must be weighed against the organization's risk tolerance.
Evidently, the risk still exceeds the risk tolerance of several smaller websites.
- jacquesm 4y ago> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't involved in much risk analysis? Try again. I take it you have rock falling from the sky insurance as well? And don't forget about the crocodiles.
- ziddoap 4y ago>Try again. They say, without refuting anything. >I take it you have rock falling from the sky insurance as well? And don't forget about the crocodiles. I have life insurance, yep! Which includes accidents, etc. Not that either of those situations is remotely analogous to GDPR fines. Edit: I should make it clear that I don't operate the sites, so if your upset about what conclusion these websites came to, take it up with them. I am just pointing out that there still is a risk, and it is obvious that this remaining risk matters to some of these sites as they choose not to serve EU visitors. Do I block EU citizens from my site? No, I don't.
- jacquesm 4y agoIt's not the risk analysis that drives these companies to shut down EU traffic, it is cost benefit analysis. Until the USA implements a similar law - hopefully without the warts, which the GDPR definitely has - this situation will persist. Note that parties that make money on their products rather than on their users have no problem with GDPR compliance at all.