skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "I guess we should only enact new laws which already have established case law. /s"

I disagree with the author's lenient and dismissive take on people's genuine concerns. Interpret it as you will.
Boilerplate code (wikipedia)
Studio Ghibli Holds Farewell Ceremony for Late Director Isao Takahata
if you want to join, you can get on the waiting list at dashdash.com
From wikipedia:

The GDPR replaces the 1995 Data Protection Directive.[4] Because the GDPR is a regulation, not a directive, it does not require national governments to pass any enabling legislation and is directly binding and applicable.[5]

So, no local laws. It's a regulation.
One of the most important things is to get the appropriate toothbrush, ie. one that says "soft". Not "hard" or even "medium", because while those feel like they would be more effective, they are much too harsh on the gums even the enamel, over time. They also force you to apply a lot of pressure if you want to clean between the teeth, adding to the damage.

A soft toothbrush using in small circular motions is best. And for the love of all that is holy, floss!
that or a mention directly at the start of the conversation.
Wasn't this domain imitating the actual Hacker News banned years ago?

Plus, I think they violate rules because this is just blog spam.

The actual source of the story is: https://ivan.barreraoro.com.ar/signal-desktop-html-tag-injec...
Reminder: you have to legally comply with every letter of the GDPR, not just the TLDR version. Saying "but we implemented the TLDR version" is not a legal defence.
Does es6 tags use this under the hood?
Furthermore, it imposes unbelievable costs on companies that in the end must be passed on to consumers. This is completely unnecessary legislation that will probably have no measurable positive effect at all. Bureaucracy and politics at its best.
On Google's case it appears they see more worthwhile to migrate their Python code into Go and Swift than improving Python runtimes.

Remember Unladen Swallow?
Except that metatable may change the behavior of a table itself, and js proxy is just a wrapper that cannot change an original object.
Quit your job, your mental health is far more important and tech is in demand anyway; I switched away after 2 months and then again after 7 months. "1 year on a resume or else you're doomed" is bullshit, unless this is your first job ever.

Have a honest talk with your wife, it can save your relationship. Most people I know break up because they don't talk with each other enough. Remember that it's supposed to be her and you vs the problem, not her vs you.

Good luck.
If it is difficult and time consuming for you to answer a GDPR request then your data handling practices are bad and you should feel bad.
PayPal buys Swedish startup iZettle for $2.2bn in its biggest ever deal
What you're describing is the way common law works. Most European jurisdictions work under a civil law system.
There are literally no costs for complying if you sell or give away a messenger app, unless you're leaving everything unencrypted or collect tons of unrelated private data, too.

If they sell private information gathered from that messenger app to undisclosed third parties, then there may be additional costs of compliance.

Maybe this developer is complaining because he's running a nefarious business model? In that case it might indeed be easiest for him to shut down his business in the EU.
Talent pool as a Saas and the company needs to manage GDPR - you still have acces to your data. Still open how you monitor the company as required by GDPR, but at least you can redirect angry candidates.
Peinados de Trenzas de lado y cabello suelto
FTA: "Meanwhile, many of the tasks that seem most basic to us humans—like running over rough terrain or interpreting body language—are all but impossible for the machines of today and the foreseeable future."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/boston-dynamics-set-to-sell-it...
Putting a Definition to Modern Luxury
The amount of discretion and lack of clarity in the penalties is part of the problem. It opens you up to risk based on the whims of politics and the regulators and increases uncertainty. Laws should be clear, limited, and understandable - this is not.
It seems to me that French and other European cheese makers are much more interested in protecting the integrity of their product than opening up the US market for it.
Pardon me but, what does ICO site mean in this context?
I have actually seen government agencies complain about being deluged by FOI requests, the cost of dealing with them etc. They mostly get ignored because on inspection the "deluge" of FOI requests tends to be from journalists digging for stories, and that's sort of what we want them to do. Also because the high cost of FOI responses tends to reflect messy and disorganised internal information systems rather than anything fundamental.

That said, I don't think it's really comparable to the GDPR. For one FOI compliance is a joke, organisations get out of it all the time on the thinnest of pretexts. There's no real incentive for a government to police itself in this regard. But GDPR enforcement is incentivised by large sums of money, for an organisation that is technically bankrupt.
> The problem of multiple ambiguities in GDPR hasn't really been addressed here.

Such as?

> Also, must be nice to live in a country where the regulator is as benevolent and reasonable as is described in this article.

It is, thanks.
I'm a sound engineer and lifelong 'digital audio hater' who's objected to the unpleasant highs off CDs etc, relative to analog recording, for years. Also sleep in, and frequently use, earplugs, and live in mostly silence, also for years.

Almost impossible for me to hear 'Laurel'. It's Yanny all day, over here.
"his belief that everyone working in GDPR enforcement in the EU will not only be totally predictable and reasonable today but also going forward into the indefinite future."

EXACTLY! There seems to be an almost cultish devotion to the benevolent institution that it can do no wrong, neither now nor henceforth.

I understand WHY people have this belief. The EU is under constant attack at the moment from many sides, and people feel they need to defend it at all costs, even it they are wrong.
I am curious, what kind of write characteristics can manage to saturate a 255s timeout on a storage device that does 10k+ iops and gigabytes per second throughput? Normally writes slowing down leads to backpressure because the syscalls issueing them take longer to return.

I can imagine some crazy random access, small-record, vectored IO from large thread pools. But that's not exactly common because most software that is IO-heavy tries really hard to avoid these things.
It did spike, being compared with Facebook et al. normalizes the spikes away though: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
> and also to be curious about why they were not hired. A GDPR button lets them indulge their curiousity and start digging in to interview notes etc.

If your company can not show the candidates why they were not hired, you are doing a very bad job.

Are you discriminating against protected classes?

Are you rude or offensive in your comments?

Then, stop doing it. That will be a very good side-effect of this situation. Public scrutiny works. If a company needs to make public their interview notes, that notes are going to improve quality and abide to law.

> how strong any company will experience their firehose of GDPR requests to be

If you are big enough to have a big influx of GDPR, you need to automate it.

> how easy it is for them to make requests

It needs to be easy. The goal is not to let your company shield behind "sorry it is too complicated to give you the information". You need to give people easy access to their own data.

> wildcard factors

How is this difference of a Denial of service attack on the technical side? On the legal part, there are lawsuits that are going to be more effective than GDPR that starts with recommendations for improvement.

> The candidate gets back a formatted dump by email of all sorts of recruitment data, including interview notes, etc. There are obvious ways to monetise a service like this, hence incentive for someone to do it.

You only get the data about YOUR own interview. You can not hoard data this way. It works the other way around. The data protection is protecting you from the company monetizing this information without your consent. Companies are the ones hoarding YOUR personal data and creating a business around it without YOUR consent.

Your concerns are the main reason GDPR was created.
#CreatePreneurAfrica Zziwa Aaron Alone, Uganda's King of Guerilla Fimmaking
Don't think you read the thread - The really desirable internships are the unpaid ones at high status places where its who you know that counts no what you know.
> Largely pointless. IPs are personal data

I know. I'm on that side. Can link you to dozens threads where the comment stating ip are pii are downvoted to hell asunder and false myths spread like wildfire.

> Courts largely agree that calendars for appointments are fine

yes, but for online calendars the provider is a processor and need to be listed as such. and when a customer exercise the right of being forgotten, you'll need to go back and delete the meetings. all new stuff I'm quite sure the majority forgot to consider.

> Yes I did. I informed myself

good for you, doesn't mean there are a lot of business that didn't, and considering the false myth spread around here, this board needs to hear as much as possible about these things.
There's no hysteria. There's just FUD disinformation campaign - businesses who make a lot of money thanks to privacy violations are very unhappy with this and they have a lot of voices.
It doesn't seem to be just addresses since they are extracted from something.
The link to ico.org.uk in the comment above.
In that scenario, you are the data controller and the GDPR obligations ride on you.
Good point, and shows that I haven't kept up with the latest developments here :-) Though in the context of a one-off research project, I still think picking a concrete Python version and using its byte/wordcode is the better choice. It won't be an enterprise-quality project with a long lifetime, but neither is the author's solution of parsing (a subset of) Python manually.
The Information Comissioner’s Office site, as linked in the grandparent post.
Information Commissioner's Office: https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/
Man Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for DDoS Attacks, Firearm Charges
> I don’t want to end up being arrested for GDPR violations when I go on a holiday in Europe (yes, I really saw that one)

The US did it recently:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/06/oliver-schm...
> that this reasonableness is not encoded in law.

This is the main issue with this regulation in my opinion. Some of the recent statements by EU officials on that matter verge on absolutist notions of law: "Don't worry. Authorities will be lenient and benevolent." This is how absolutist kings argued why there shouldn't be a constitution or a state under the rule of law.
beepmargeddon is a local privilege exploit, not a RCE.

I'm not aware of any debian package (I don't use debian that often though so mind that) that A) installs a network service and B) uses unsafe defaults while C) activating the service on boot by default
As mentioned elsewhere, these regulators have been operating for a very long time. Even when dealing with the whole Facebook / Cambridge Analytica they're moving quite slowly. There have been various legal changes regarding privacy in the past. E.g. for The Netherlands it is not allowed to have a checkbox on by default to sign up to a mailing list. There's a fine if you don't abide and this fine can be very hefty. In case of problems the regulator first reaches out, a fine is the very last resort.

There has been ample history on how these regulators have been working over the past 20-40 years.
Do people who participate in MK get any money for their time?
> But what if an online service's business model relies on processing profile data for purposes such as targeting ads to be viable, and regulators decide that a subject's right to object to that processing outweighs its necessity to the financial model?

forgive my frank language, but too fucking bad.

edit: my right always outweigh your profits. Sorry.
GDPR is not about annoying small businesses at all. First, to file a complaint one has to go through several steps, and the fine will be proportional to the offence. No small business owner will have to pay 20M€ for logging an IP (plus keeping IP logs are actually mandatory). Offenders will first be issued a reminder, then be fined if they don't comply after that. If you're a small business owner and you don't comply, then you can't complain.

Secondly and most importantly, GDPR is not about preventing people to get information, but rather about preventing people to track customer. If I use your example, GDPR would prevent you from following someone after they watched you juggling. It would prevent you from following them home, noting where they work, who are their acquaintances, what kind of food they eat and so on: it's technically legal but incredibly creepy. If someone were doing this to you you would be the one to tell them to piss off. You can perfectly write what are the observations of the passer-bys who watched you, as long as the log is anonymized. Which is easy to do and not harming for your business. You didn't want to track them anyway, did you?
Trainification
That's supernice for you in supernice Denmark. Now what about all the other EU countries? What about in 5 years time if things become less supernice. 10 years time?
We use instance store for Postgres and Cassandra now on i3 and i2 respectively.
You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.
> I was saying that from a legal complience perspective, the notion that the regulatary body is "good-natured" is meaningless.

It's not, because as the article explains, experience with the existing regime shows that, the good natured regulator will send you a helpful and explanatory warning letter that tells you what you need to do to become compliant before jumping into fines.

An un-good-natured regulator would behave rather differently.
But people aren't defending Europe, they're defending the national data protection regulators (eg ICO) which are not European bodies.
What people mean when they say the agency is "good-natured" is not that they're going to ignore non-compliance, but that the way they enforce it is not being completely hostile and
pulling out a massive lawsuit the second they see any issues.

Their goal is not to destroy companies, it's to make them compliant, and it's much easier for them to do that with communication than expensive legal action.
There's no need for all caps.

HDL can be referred to as code. And I do know what HDL is and what FPGAs are, thank you.
In an ideal world, yes. But that leads you down a Kafkaesque hole of bureaucracy - at some point you have to stop adding detail and leave things open to interpretation. There are plenty of laws out there with fines "up to €X" and, from my limited experience, I don't think the GDPR is especially ambiguous compared to others.
Rafting tour antalya manavgat
Antalya Köprülü Kanyonda Rafting Turları Yaz sezonunun gelmesiyle macera severleri buluşturmaya devam ediyor. Raftingo Adventure ulaşım ve öğle yemeği dahil hizmet kalitesinden ödün vermeden rafting severleri bir araya
How can I be non-compliant with GDPR? If I could care less about it, is it enough for me to do nothing? Should I expect that European users should find out themselves that they my website is not GDPR-compliant? Or I must actively ban EU IPs?
Engineering failure: EPM loses control over dam under construction
It is highly unlikely that a lot of requests will "sink" your company. As per the GDPR, you have a month to respond to requests and you can extend this period by two more months by telling the user that you need more time to process their request. (See article 12 for reference)
But you are not using P2P to exchange pictures or video with your friend or family. You store them in a big central server that somehow magically get paid for.

Wikipedia still begs yearly for hosting whereas if people voluntered their bandwidth and space there would be no problem hosting it.

I remember eDonkey fondly. The variety of things you can get with torrents pale in comparison of what was open to us: people would just share "their" files with a huge variety of different content. Nowadays you only get a few thousands of the most popular US movies.
I tried Mullvad, Melbourne/Sydney servers, my adsl speed dropped from 14 Mbps to 10 Mbps
> "Your argument is that there is no case law so you get to claim whatever imaginary consequence you want."

No, that's not my argument at-all. That's just your personal interpretation of my words.

> "You’re also claiming people are rightfully concerned."

I'm not "also claiming". That was the sole claim from the very start.

> "Where is that right coming from? From past experience? Or is they just baseless concerns?"

It's literally in the comment:

(1) Some elements of the GDPR are up for interpretation.

(2) There's currently no case law surrounding GDPR.

If you take both of these facts into account - it is perfectly plausible for people to be concerned, as there's no telling how things will play out in a court of law.
And "large scale" means how many records in DB? How many users? Or records per day?
> The only drawback currently is it's a kernel module and needs to be compiled, which makes setup across systems a bit involved, however there are ongoing efforts to merge into the kernel.

Do these things have to be kernel modules? Is this a kernel module on OS X?

I ask because 90%+ of the time my OS X system goes unstable the moment I add a .kext.
Fair point - my intent was to point out that some sources which are less intimidating than others. If all you read was the Varonis link you'd be in trouble, but if someone's the kind of person who thinks that they can read one blog post and understand the GDPR I'm not sure they're the kind of person that can be helped anyway...
_But that's purely your own opinion_

It’s also the opinion of every regulatory lawyer!

I don’t really see what the alternative is. It’s painfully obvious that a regulation like this is needed. Like any regulation, there will be a period of bedding in while we work out the actual bounds and procedures required.

I’m curious then what your alternative proposal for implementing this regulation would be, assuming you think it’s something that needs to be regulated at all.
You can do this already with the existing Data Protection Act. Businesses have not drowned in subject access requests. People seem to forget that data protection isn't new, it's just being beefed up a bit.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

Another link from 2012 describing how to handle data protection in the 1998 framework: http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/D...
This is the third time this link has been posted in the past three weeks or so. And not only that, every time, it ended up on the front page. Just before that these posts started, there was an article posted that says "Lyme disease is coming back" or something like that...

Makes one wonder....
I think the UK agency had some text on erasure and backups, and it basically boiled down to this:

If a data subject requests their data to be erased, you should remove their data from active systems so that it is no longer being processed, but you don't have to remove it from backups or other passive systems. You should however store some sort of marker so that if you need to restore data from backups, the data subject's data will be re-erased or otherwise stopped from entering active systems again.

And if a data subject asks, you have to tell them how long you store your backups of their personal data.

I think that's perfectly reasonable. And if your backup retention policy is "forever", now might be a good time to re-evaluate that policy.
Why is this unnecessary? We see daily announcements about personal data being leaked and misused. It’s plainly a problem.
The question is then who should reserve it?

The IETF can ask for domain names for technical reasons, i.e. as part of internet standards.

ICANN can allocate domains as gTLDs but doesn't have mandate/policy to reserve names without using them. Effectively .home is reserved because there is too much use to safely allocate it.

Finally, IETF can recognise .home as a special domain that is used locally. But that didn't work out because an insecure delegation is needed for DNSSEC.

Purely formally, ICANN has 'at large' structures that represent the interests of users.
Content writing and strategy in digital world
I read that GDPR applies to EU residents. That means someone who is EU resident non necessarily could be browsing from the EU. For example when on holidays.
But the article says nothing about the history of math. Whatever technique NASA used to do calculations in the 1960s, it was an engineering concern not a math concern. And I doubt if it has any relevance to the progress of AI today.
Agreed. There is some of that for the young/old woman image, but it's clearer for Monroe vs Einstein. And it's even clearer in this video: https://youtu.be/tB5-JahAXfc
Learn ReasonML by Building Tic Tac Toe in React
Not sure why you got down voted as it is correct.

When you do business with a customer asking for the location is a common part of the sign up process.

We're talking about a law that is about data gathering, if you're not gathering data about that customer there's nothing to worry about.
And https://containership.io and Im sure many others
God I miss forums.
Caught Out by Amazon's EC2 CPU Credits
Seems to me that even acknowledging these truths invites attack.
Yes.

And even (1) isn't always needed. There are several justifications for processing personal data, and permission is only one of them. (Although for compliance it is the easiest)

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

And (5) has a bunch of caveats. You don't always need to delete data.

Right to Erasure: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
Well, lots of ends open to interpretation, and $20 mln fine - so obviously nothing to care about! Hysteria!
> CNIL then immediately changed their mind and dished out a fine

So, there's no opportunity for litigating using their previous statements? At least now I understand why you're on every GDPR thread.
Every institutions have targets to prove their existence is of benefit to the tax payer.
Plus it gives easy access to the government to peek at your data without any significant clause. Your data are theirs too now.
Lufthansa's Android App now blocking Custom Roms / rooted devices for “security”
All law has room for interpretation, that's what the courts are for.

There are no targets for bureaucrats.
No one would ever use that terminology in practice/conversation.