11 ms·

Much of the GDPR is fine and I think we are right to crackdown on cross-website tracking, but the recent attempts in Europe to basically ban behavioral ads of a

Much of the GDPR is fine and I think we are right to crackdown on cross-website tracking, but the recent attempts in Europe to basically ban behavioral ads of all kind (a reversion to newspaper style ads) is, in my view, clearly a protectionist effort aimed specifically at American companies because Europe feels they cannot compete (of course missing the fact that the adhoc, ex post facto & bill of attainder-style of regulation in Europe is a large part of the story of why they have been unable to compete) There are lots of small, niche businesses that literally could not exist without this targeting. e: Is the discussion in this thread really so without value that it should be hidden?

LunaSea 3y ago
Simply a tit-for-tat for all the EU companies that were sued in the US the last ten or fifteen years.
- valdiorn 3y ago
  can you elaborate? what companies? why did they get sued?
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    Sure: Airbus, Alstom and Technip are a few examples. They were usually sued for corruption in developing countries to obtain contracts. They were however sued in the US even though they are not headquartered there, had to pay huge fines that brought said companies to their knees and were later, surprisingly, bought by American companies.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Only one of those was bought by an American company and also they literally were bribing politicians
      - LunaSea 3y ago
        > Only one of those was bought by an American company Yes, the operation failed in the case of Airbus because they were smart enough to raise the issue themselves in the UK to avoid being sued in the US. Alstom was bought by GE and Technip was bought by FMC Technologies. > and also they literally were bribing politicians Something that no US company has done in developing countries I'm sure. In the case of GDPR-fines companies are literally laundering use data.
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        US companies are also sued and fined in the US for breaking these laws. > In the case of GDPR-fines companies are literally laundering use data. They are using the data in compliance with their ToS, which is decided post-facto to be in violation of the GDPR. The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut “don’t bribe politicians.”
        LunaSea 3y ago
        > US companies are also sued and fined in the US for breaking these laws. Could you give me some examples? Also, US suing EU companies for things happening in developing countries is a mind blowing overreach of US territorial jurisdiction. > They are using the data in compliance with their ToS A ToS isn't a law. > which is decided post-facto to be in violation of the GDPR No. GDPR was introduced and companies were given years to adapt and become compliant. > The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut This is also wrong. You can simply ask the EU member country's national agency responsible for the enforcement of the GDPR proactively. > The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut “don’t bribe politicians.” In countries that run on bribes this becomes less clear.
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        Honeywell was recently fined for FCPA violations. I don't see it as overreach that the US does not let foreign companies that pay bribes compete in the US. Given that US companies cannot pay bribes legally, it would be hard for them to compete domestically with companies that can bribe simply because they are headquartered elsewhere. > This is also wrong. You can simply ask the EU member country's national agency responsible for the enforcement of the GDPR proactively. I am going to assume this one is a joke given the consistency (or lack thereof) of GDPR guidance from European regulators.
valdiorn 3y ago
I mostly agree. I'm not exactly a fan of Big Tech; Meta, X and co. are all pretty horrid companies, but it does feel like some EU politicians think they've discovered an "infinite money glitch" and they just lob random fines at these companies expecting them to cough up cash to stay in their markets. some of the things they're getting fined for is pretty ridiculous.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  Not even 100k is a joke, not infinite money.
vegarab 3y ago
The article is quite clear on what the issue is. Meta needs explicit consent to do this kind of targeting. With consent, there is no issue. The tracking itself is not illegal, but doing it without consent is illegal.
- bettercallsalad 3y ago
  I have doubts on how effective these type of consent based system are. I for one always click “accept all” and move on for most websites I am on. Average layman has very little time the effort needed to understand and customize the consents are quite high. Not to say they purposely make the UI hostile in those consent popups. For me anyway GDPR has been largely a waste of bureaucracy, a better effort would be to educate populous about what cookies are and how tracking works and the extent of the trackings etc - these stuff should be in High School curriculum already by now.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    Any site that uses a dark pattern like only having "Allow all" and "Show purposes" is in clear violation of the GDPR, and they could just as well have just ignored showing anything! The regulation is clear that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A conforming consient dialog has a "reject all" as well as an "allow" button. And when they do, I always click "reject all". I think most people would - which is why I guess some sites still try to use those dark patterns. I'm still waiting for a big regulatory fine to make an example. If a known company is fined almost out of existence due to lack of a reject button, I think there would be instant self-regulation here. > For me anyway GDPR has been largely a waste of bureaucracy, a better effort would be to educate populous about what cookies are and how tracking works and the extent of the trackings etc - these stuff should be in High School curriculum already by now. Don't confuse the GDPR with "cookie banners" though. That's the end user visible tip of the iceberg. The biggest premise (and in my opinion the genius of the regulation) is that the end user is not required to know or understand anything. Instead, the people handling their data should. And if nothing else, it really has forced everyone (often even outside the EU) to think twice about how their data is stored and retained. And that's huge positive even if cookies were never a thing in gdpr.
bigbacaloa 3y ago
uS style privacy invasion only makes sense if you're already drunk on the Kool aid

LunaSea 3y ago

Simply a tit-for-tat for all the EU companies that were sued in the US the last ten or fifteen years.

valdiorn 3y ago
can you elaborate? what companies? why did they get sued?
- LunaSea 3y ago
  Sure: Airbus, Alstom and Technip are a few examples. They were usually sued for corruption in developing countries to obtain contracts. They were however sued in the US even though they are not headquartered there, had to pay huge fines that brought said companies to their knees and were later, surprisingly, bought by American companies.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Only one of those was bought by an American company and also they literally were bribing politicians
    - LunaSea 3y ago
      > Only one of those was bought by an American company Yes, the operation failed in the case of Airbus because they were smart enough to raise the issue themselves in the UK to avoid being sued in the US. Alstom was bought by GE and Technip was bought by FMC Technologies. > and also they literally were bribing politicians Something that no US company has done in developing countries I'm sure. In the case of GDPR-fines companies are literally laundering use data.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        US companies are also sued and fined in the US for breaking these laws. > In the case of GDPR-fines companies are literally laundering use data. They are using the data in compliance with their ToS, which is decided post-facto to be in violation of the GDPR. The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut “don’t bribe politicians.”
        LunaSea 3y ago
        > US companies are also sued and fined in the US for breaking these laws. Could you give me some examples? Also, US suing EU companies for things happening in developing countries is a mind blowing overreach of US territorial jurisdiction. > They are using the data in compliance with their ToS A ToS isn't a law. > which is decided post-facto to be in violation of the GDPR No. GDPR was introduced and companies were given years to adapt and become compliant. > The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut This is also wrong. You can simply ask the EU member country's national agency responsible for the enforcement of the GDPR proactively. > The level of regulatory uncertainty there is far from the clear-cut “don’t bribe politicians.” In countries that run on bribes this becomes less clear.
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        Honeywell was recently fined for FCPA violations. I don't see it as overreach that the US does not let foreign companies that pay bribes compete in the US. Given that US companies cannot pay bribes legally, it would be hard for them to compete domestically with companies that can bribe simply because they are headquartered elsewhere. > This is also wrong. You can simply ask the EU member country's national agency responsible for the enforcement of the GDPR proactively. I am going to assume this one is a joke given the consistency (or lack thereof) of GDPR guidance from European regulators.

valdiorn 3y ago

I mostly agree. I'm not exactly a fan of Big Tech; Meta, X and co. are all pretty horrid companies, but it does feel like some EU politicians think they've discovered an "infinite money glitch" and they just lob random fines at these companies expecting them to cough up cash to stay in their markets. some of the things they're getting fined for is pretty ridiculous.

johnnyworker 3y ago
Not even 100k is a joke, not infinite money.

vegarab 3y ago

The article is quite clear on what the issue is. Meta needs explicit consent to do this kind of targeting. With consent, there is no issue. The tracking itself is not illegal, but doing it without consent is illegal.

bettercallsalad 3y ago
I have doubts on how effective these type of consent based system are. I for one always click “accept all” and move on for most websites I am on. Average layman has very little time the effort needed to understand and customize the consents are quite high. Not to say they purposely make the UI hostile in those consent popups. For me anyway GDPR has been largely a waste of bureaucracy, a better effort would be to educate populous about what cookies are and how tracking works and the extent of the trackings etc - these stuff should be in High School curriculum already by now.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  Any site that uses a dark pattern like only having "Allow all" and "Show purposes" is in clear violation of the GDPR, and they could just as well have just ignored showing anything! The regulation is clear that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A conforming consient dialog has a "reject all" as well as an "allow" button. And when they do, I always click "reject all". I think most people would - which is why I guess some sites still try to use those dark patterns. I'm still waiting for a big regulatory fine to make an example. If a known company is fined almost out of existence due to lack of a reject button, I think there would be instant self-regulation here. > For me anyway GDPR has been largely a waste of bureaucracy, a better effort would be to educate populous about what cookies are and how tracking works and the extent of the trackings etc - these stuff should be in High School curriculum already by now. Don't confuse the GDPR with "cookie banners" though. That's the end user visible tip of the iceberg. The biggest premise (and in my opinion the genius of the regulation) is that the end user is not required to know or understand anything. Instead, the people handling their data should. And if nothing else, it really has forced everyone (often even outside the EU) to think twice about how their data is stored and retained. And that's huge positive even if cookies were never a thing in gdpr.

bigbacaloa 3y ago

uS style privacy invasion only makes sense if you're already drunk on the Kool aid