ucaetano

60 ms·

571.
by ucaetano 8y ago
One correction: missing the massive London -> Calais wool trade that drove most of the English economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Staple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_the_St
572.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Essentially it translates that: * Accounts that publicly disclose as being related to group A And * Accounts that don't publicly mention any relationship with group A, but are frequently accused as being part of group A Show similar be
573.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Your post is pretty much the definition of whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
574.
by ucaetano 8y ago
No, as an owner your interests do not necessarily align with the DPO. They might, but they do no necessarily.
575.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Like Zuck before senate? No, like Google, Microsoft and Intel before the European Commission.
576.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> What do you imagine that fixed cost to be? Compliance. It doesn't matter if you delete your logs, if you had them in the first place you're subject to compliance. Like the example in the article. Not sure why people are still
577.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> If I want to put an open source app in the App Store, that’s not a business model for me. It’s more just personal expression. Try convincing a regulator of that. But it doesn't matter, you're still logging PII. GDPR doesn&#x2
578.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> You're required to have a fire safety officer at these companies too, but it's not a full-time position. AFAIK, most of the "safety committee" regulations usually have waivers for small companies.
579.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> But then that would imply that Tesla has an obligation to make sure third party news outlets report on every holiday taken by every executive. Public companies have to publicly report any "relevant facts" that could seriously
580.
by ucaetano 8y ago
issue isn't the business model, is the size. For a large company, handling GDPR is trivial. For a startup or small company, the cost is prohibitively high. I'm not arguing for or against it, just pointing that the resulting uninte
581.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Can you imagine yourself trying to convince a regulator of that?
582.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> you can't be sued except by the regulator Regulators. "Member State shall provide for one or more independent public authorities to be responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation". So, 28 countries, eac
583.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> I read that and I don't see how it would be in the conflict of interest for probably the vast majority of cases Being the sole owner and manager and being the DPO is clearly a conflict of interest.
584.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Does GDPR have any non-monetary enforcement? Yes: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-84-gdpr/ > Member States shall lay down the rules on other penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation So every country ca
585.
by ucaetano 8y ago
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-38-gdpr/ > The data protection officer may fulfil other tasks and duties. The controller or processor shall ensure that any such tasks and duties do not result in a conflict of interests. I
586.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> is as ridiculous as it is completely false Agree, that's why I never implied that.
587.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Regardless of what you log, here is a minimum cost of compliance, from the article: > I do not have the resources to hire a Data Protection Officer (DPO) or EU Representative as required by GDPR. I do not have designated EU contacts. If
588.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Directed or not at large companies, it applies to all companies. It introduces a fixed cost for operating with any user-related data, which effectively kills any companies operating below that cost.
589.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> LocationSmart’s home page features the corporate logos of all four the major wireless providers, as well as companies like Google, Neustar, ThreatMetrix, and U.S. Cellular. Funny how they removed the corporate logos they had on their w
590.
by ucaetano 8y ago
You can switch to text labels: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2473038?hl=en&authuse...
591.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> In a micropayment content market, it would be creators selling directly to audience. It doesn't matter, you'd still need to generate the same level of revenue than the ad-supported business, or even more, to justify the switc
592.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> handled between the company and investors There's no such thing for a public company. It either talks to the board, which represents investors, or to the public, since it is impossible to know who owns shares of a public company.
593.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Sure, but a 6-week sabbatical in a company struggling to keep up with planned production goals is largely unheard of.
594.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Google doesn't want to facilitate that content for some reason. It wants to squash it. Isn't it providing more tools for easy media subscription? I used it to subscribe to the NYT pretty quickly not too long ago. But hey, if
595.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> I think I already explained my position pretty clearly, which is that consumers benefit from the free stuff less than they suffer from the monopoly subsidizing it. Well, you need to prove that to start with: consumer harm.
596.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> I think there's yet another model possible. Oh, sure, there could be, but I wouldn't invest my money in trying to prove that. What number of users do you think would be willing to pay how much for all the content they access
597.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> After all, consumers benefitted enormously from the phone system coming into existence. You're mixing two distinct periods of time. When there was the expansion of telephone systems, there was no consumer harm, but when AT&T s
598.
by ucaetano 8y ago
India does have, only China doesn't.
599.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The Indian model is very different: cities create large "suburban" slums and poor villages around them. Not because of resources, but because of overpopulation.
600.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> which means that other areas of the city may have less of it. And make a ton of money while doing it! Farms closer to cities are richer than farms further away from cities.

More ›