lajhsdfkl

5 ms·

1.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
So I should be afraid of litigation?
2.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Then wtf is the point of GDPR if nobody will be sued for violating it?
3.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Discourse, disqus good job nit picking.
4.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
How about you try answering this question I posed to you What is your point here? What is your point when you say that the EU is not litigious? Are you saying that I shouldn't expect to receive a fine for violating GDPR? Are you saying
5.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>Except this forum software does provide a tool that lets the user export their own data, as well as a tool that lets an admin strip all identifying data. Completely besides the point, there are hundreds of different pieces of forum soft
6.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
This is at least the 5th instance I've seen of a website announcing their closure due to GDPR on Hacker News. Most websites probably wouldn't announce it and given that a post about simply blocking all EU users got upvoted to th
7.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> Yes, this is really little different from shutting down a whole forum because you received a single DMCA request. Completely unrelated. Not only are DMCA requests easier to handle than data access requests, the fines for not complying
8.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> If those equivalent resources are thousands (or millions) of government panels then we should be able to mathematically prove equivalency. There is a method of solving an NP complete problem with thousands (or millions) of government p
9.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> if Lockheed martin were to start a Gmail, GDocs equivalent tomorrow, would you use their services knowing how closely they work with the military? Them working closely with the military would not be the reason I would choose not to use
10.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>We put our faith into them, in the hopes that they would honor their creed, that they would do no evil. Working for the US military is not doing evil.
11.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> then it implies that there is nothing special about markets How so? It implies simply that markets are not efficient. It does not imply that state control would be more efficient and it does not imply that markets are not the most ef
12.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Is the law only effective at protecting privacy in your mind if it kills Facebook's and Google's business model? Because I suspect that is what GDPR advocates truly want.
13.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
I don't believe the 2 party system is the problem. Looking at political polarization in a country like France and it's just as bad.
14.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Thank you for giving my comment the least charitable reading possible. If that were the case why would I even bother leading with "you will either lead the way" If a better monetization scheme that ads arises from the ashes of GDP
15.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
This is correct.
16.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
I don't care how you reword it, those "rights" are stupid.
17.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
You mean the consent like not going on the website in the first place? And if all GDPR was just a bunch of consent forms it wouldn't even be a problem. GDPR is bad/onerous for the following reasons - right to have access to the in
18.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>It should be possible to track ad campaigns and therefore see exactly the turnover ratios as long as the campaigns are broad enough that they don't target individual users. In the analog world they to this for example via coupon co
19.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
> Which is how the paper and TV ads industry worked for more than half a century, forcing brands to push creative limits in creating campaigns that we regard sometimes as a pinnacle of arts and media culture. Just because the Internet le
20.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>Good I've been seeing GDPR supporters saying that a lot recently. Time will show if it's true. I admit it's possible that removing ads as a revenue model could somehow allow europeans to innovate and discover a superior
21.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
GDPR benefits the US and US tech dominance. With GDPR the EU just legislated away one of the most profitable monetization schemes ever devised. I think the administration will sit back and do nothing and watch the fire from across the pond.
22.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>If anything, GDPR should be seen as an opportunity to disrupt the quasi-monopolistic online ad market. It's amazing to me how people manage to fool themselves into thinking there is hope when the world is crumbling around them. If
23.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>The US holds one dominating advantage in one subset of technology. Consumer-facing internet tech. While a lot of people employed in this field commentate on this website, it's a marginal part of the tech industry, and it's not
24.
Ask HN: If your website loads another websites images do you violate GDPR?
1 points by lajhsdfkl 8y ago|0 comments
25.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
I mean, fine. I'm not an EU citizen, I think GDPR is a pain in ass but ultimately is not my decision no matter how much I judge you all. But it does frustrate me that you all believe that GDPR will somehow be good for you. I've se
26.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>Obviously if ads are less targeted then they may be less effective so advertisers will make less on ads that cost more. This will hurt their bottom line, which in turn will make the products we buy more expensive. But that's exactl
27.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
And how is this related?
28.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
>The requirement to hire a DPO is not a new thing, by the way - many countries in the EU already required this. This is true for many provisions in the GDPR - in Germany, for example, very little changes from the way it used to be, their
29.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
Can you explain to me the point of this comment? I'm too dense.
30.
by lajhsdfkl 8y ago
If you plan on doing business with EU entities at any point in the future there could be risk

More ›