skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, the user is still "paying" with their data. But they didn't sign up for that. (And if they did, congrats, you're a step closer to GDPR compliance!)

The GDPR specifically forbids giving users the option of paying with data. (In that you can't deny access if the user doesn't agree to the data usage).

Charge. A. Fee.

It turns out that a whole lot of users don't want microtransactions for everything they do online, and would rather allow providers to monetize their data in exchange for access. You not liking those agreements is not a reasonable justification for forcibly banning them.
> Don't like what they are doing; Don't sign up.

It's not nearly as simple as that.

The issue isn't (only) that ToCs are written in legalese (they are a contract, after all). The bigger issue is that users don't know what Facebook collects about them or how that can be used against them. And it's clear that Facebook gathers a significant amount of information on you even if you never "sign up" for an account.

In the ToCs, it is written in vagaries like "the information you submit to us", but in practical terms, Facebook has been caught doing things that users (even very technical users) didn't expect. When you type in the "comment" form but delete the comment, Facebook has actively analyzed what text was deleted. The first Facebook iOS app transferred the entire contents of my contacts list (it's possible that this was messaged previously, but I wasn't aware of this permission). It's pretty clear that LinkedIn pilfered my GMail contacts without my permission or even my knowledge.

It's not reasonable to assume that users know what Facebook 2018 might do with their data when they sign up in 2008. This counts 2x when it comes to M&A -- if a company is purchased, the new company can completely rewrite the ToCs and I, as a consumer, have no ability to withdraw my previously submitted data to them (without components of the GDPR).

GDPR's "Right to be Forgotten" is interesting to me because it's a foreign concept in US law. As an engineer, I find it difficult to deal with corner cases. As a consumer, I feel like the foundations of what we call "privacy" are only eroding without the GDPR. Congress is willing to defend the privacy of children under 13 (COPPA), medical patient records (HIPPA), some financial account records, but little else.

> Zuck isn't putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them to use to service.

This isn't about coercion (or the lack of it). It's about transparency of operations and information asymmetry.

And I don't mean to hate on Facebook. They have been the target of more reports, but there are precious few companies in the same industry which don't have many similar offenses.
Why can't I login from Europe?
So Hacker News' solution to GDPR is to 401 European IP addresses? Nice touch but a little excessive.
This isn't about how it works, it's about whether it works or not. That companies need to follow the law isn't exactly confusing, and nobody is saying they shouldn't, but when the law cant even clearly answer basic questions of who it applies to and when, that's a problem.

There are examples of regulation that does work, but GDPR is not really in that category.
At my company doing this would be in complete violation of our data retention policy (not GPDR related). Where are companies running production services without handling logging of sensitive information? Regulation or not that kind of data is a huge liability for our legal department.
Why is everyone losing his mind over this!!?

The law makes perfect sense, it's not that hard to be compliant, and businesses with good ethics will already be compliant!
"If your car is outfitted with all of those same features, why is Tesla different?"

Maybe a) Tesla's tech isn't as good and b) Tesla's customers are more likely to be tech nerds / Tesla fans and so more likely to overestimate the capabilities of the car.
And nobody uses split windows? No screen can comfortably fit more then about 200 columns, so I believe 100 is the absolute maximum width.
"data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union."

People (regardless of EU citizenship status) who are physically in the EU.

This isn't so hard.
Deutsche Bank axes at least 7,000 jobs in trading retreat
This just sounds like Facebook begging for more content so it can profile more people.

"You just published a blog post on cats? We didn't know you like cats! Here's 15 ads about cats. And we sold your name to a mail-order cats-for-sex company. But that's OK because you agreed to that by clicking on something at one time years ago. Or maybe it was when you visited a 'partner' site and didn't click on anything at all. Still, it's all cool because we're 'friends' and you 'like' us!"
It's not really a criticism of the GDPR that some companies are irrationally panicked about it.
A light wave got sucked into a black hole, you won't believe what happened next! I predict a new meme theme of taboola/outbrain style headlines that are actually semi-accurate sciencey clickbait titles. Genius!
Of course! But hiring a US resident who happens to also be a French citizen doesn't count as doing business in France.
Can you elaborate please ? And what about the other 5% ?

I mean, if companies cared about privacy in the first place, there probably wouldn't be the need for such a regulation. At the very least, GDPR will get the general population be conscious about what the hell is going on under most websites.
What’s really behind ‘gluten sensitivity’?
> Various small sample surveys have been done to ascertain if arranged marriages or autonomous marriages have a more satisfying married life. The results are mixed - some state marriage satisfaction is higher in autonomous marriages, others find no significant differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage#Love_and_res...
No, it shouldn't be necessary.

Because: do you need personal informations from users? If yes: why?

Payment & Accounting => allowed ("legitimate use")
Technical Monitoring => allowed ("legitimate use")

And if some user want to cancel its account: is it a problem (if he doesn't owe you anuthing)??? No? Well... then you'll have no problem
It's not being used as a fallacy, since it's not part of an argument that proves a point.
You’re acting as if it’s inconceivable that there are people that don’t use PyCharm out there....
You don't have to hire anyone. You just have to appoint someone.
Voiding a transaction leaves a paper trail. Many registers require manager keys to void. Not producing a receipt requires no paper trail.
These four tech giants are upending this centuries old industry... with quantum entanglement.
Isn't this pretty much what happened with the cookie law? It states that cookies necessary for the functioning of sites were ok, but everyone ended up putting up those warnings anyways and it greatly diluted any benefit of the rule and it ended up like Prop 65: warnings everywhere, even when they weren't useful. Overall, it just led to the law being ridiculed.
Prettier: an opinionated code formatter for JavaScript etc.
Is anyone denying that they have that right?
>You think there is some grand conspiracy to annoy users so that they hate regulation?

Yeah? U.S. companies do this all the time. They did it with the cookie warnings and tried to act like they didn't know they were creating an absolutely terrible experience.

Companies acting in bad faith against regulations is basically the default.
Here's a debunking: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-...
The way things are going, we'll start whole services shutting down completely, just to avoid trying to handle people's data responsibly.
2001 Titanium PowerBook G4 vs. 2017 iPhone X
That was a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. For context, it has been speculated (source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big... ) that the next "really big one" could be in the range of 9.0.

> If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2. That’s the very big one.

I'm not well-versed in earthquakes, but from what I know the Richter magnitude is logarithmic in scale, I can't really even imagine in my head what a 9.0 quake is like.

I'm glad OP / someone is asking these questions, I often wonder about this myself, being a tech worker in San Francisco.
Because when the EU catches on, they will have funds in the EU (including customer or advertiser payments) seized, they will probably not be able to travel to the EU without fear of arrest, etc.
> more secure than your two weeks' supply of cash

Nope. If my cash is gone, that's all that's gone. With a card, you can do a lot more damage.

Cash also doesn't get denied for random/unpredictable reasons when you are abroad.

> 30s flat when I notice it's gone.

Coordinated gangs will clear out your bank accounts faster than that.

If I lose my cash, that's it. I don't have to cancel anything, I don't have to reapply for anything. I can borrow cash, or loan out some cash. Easy peasy.

Contactless is a solution looking for a problem.
According to the public information from TSMC on the new process node, it looks like we're in for significant power draw savings.

>Compared to its 10nm FinFET process, TSMC's 7nm FinFET features 1.6X logic density, ~20% speed improvement, and ~40% power reduction.

http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/7nm....

Also, any speed increases due to redesign of the cores would be on top of the ~20% speed bump from the process node change.
Again, this argument is a stretch for sites that are otherwise immune under Recital 23. It is one that may be tested by the most abusive GDPR enforcers, but I believe that test will ultimately fail.

Regardless, it’s one more reason to block radioactive EU traffic.
The corpse doesn't care who held the knife.
That's an important aspect. May I ask which country is that?

I'm curious about your product too if you are comfortable enought to disclose it :)
If you like India Pale Ale, then the handy "ip a" command might come second nature to you. Sounds weird, but this mnemonic was what I needed to get on board.
Carl Icahn Sells About $550M of His Herbalife Stake
I'm wondering this too actually, I run a small business, we collect only the bare minimum of information from our customers but we do have some European customers. I'm ignoring GDPR completely, is there any downside for me? Will they block customers from using my service? Will they sieze my European cloud servers? Or can I safely do nothing as I currently am because I don't reside or have a registered business in Europe?
>I feel that you're ignoring the situation of small startups with just a few founders

It's that the equivalent of starting a new car company and arguing that you shouldn't be required to follow the same safety standard as Volkswagen Group, because you're still a small company?

At it's core the GDPR is simply stating that you're accountable for the data you collect and that you're only allowed to use the data for the purpose is originally collect. Building privacy into your product is much easier for someone designing something from scratch, compared to retrofitting it into the business plans of Facebook and Google.

I get the feeling that most of the people arguing against the GDPR are people who are focused solely in collecting user data as a core business. The people I know who are building actual product, where people pay for a service, are doing fine. Even though that they have to build products in a manner I suggested five years ago, where user data is either not collected or delete when processing is completed.
This is factually untrue.
Most comments are already contrary to the article, but to add to the sentiment, my English professor memorably said, "Free writing is like going to the bathroom. Very important, but you don't need to show the results to the world" (I think his wording was more eloquent, but the theme is correct).
I don't think it's just this.

A philosopher must have a reasonably sufficient grasp of most extant practical working knowledge of the world. If a philosopher makes claims which are inconsistent with the working knowledge of some people, those people will quickly demonstrate the philosopher's claims to be false. Some particular contemporary examples include Noam Chomsky's[1] misapprehension of the Khmer Rouge, Eliezer Yudkowsky's[1] squabbles with quantum physicists, or the widespread abuses of mathematical concepts by "postmodern" continental philosophers as described by Sokal and Bricmont:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

And these are the better examples of would-be contemporary polymaths who make stabs at using philosophy to achieve broader social aims (as opposed to continuing long-running arguments about the ontological status of possible worlds and what Wittgenstein really said about Godel's theorem). There's so much to know it's hard not to be wrong about some of it. That situation is unique to the modern era.

So I don't think it's just about an anti-philosophy mindset being popular. Philosophy has, for practical purposes, become harder to do.

1: please don't reply to tell me that Chomsky and Yudkowsky aren't real philosophers, I know that, but I wanted examples people would recognize, and anyway their beliefs are roughly consistent with the popular positions in philosophy, and they failed in the general way I am describing, so the shoe fits
Giving people the option to delete their data is a bit like allowing someone to get their money back two years after eating a meal at a restaurant.

Given the EU assertion of global jurisdiction, the GDPR seems like a bit of a trade war and it's surprising more commentators aren't treating it as such.

The US should be inspired by this and give online retailers the opportunity to collect and remit sales taxes.
You don't need GDPR to hide your WHOIS records. Almost any domain registry provides WhoisGuard that will hide all your WHOIS data.
Canids are pretty much a superspecies anyways.

Consider brown bears and polar bears. We consider them 2 species yet they can successfully interbreed. The main reason they don't is that their ranges haven't historically overlapped. Geography, not biology, was the separator. You could view them as one species with a bivariate distribution, in the late stages of diverging into two.

Canids likewise viewed as one species with significant ecological clustering, but divided this time by behavior.
LEDE. The groups behind OpenWRT sorted out their issues and they’re back to releasing up-to-date and maintained router firmware.
Linkbait title. Only a tiny amount of people in Caracas have mining equipment.
> A card fraud you can contest

In Germany, that's very difficult, the courts generally assume that the chip+PIN system is safe.

And of course, you don't actually think that you are not paying for card fraud, do you? You just pay for it in the fees the card companies charge.
Being opposed to the use of violence to protect privacy = being opposed to privacy?
Get Google Search Results in PHP
Don’t get your hopes up for the US. This would have to overcome some amazing first amendment hurdles in the US. Short of slanderous and violent content, saying truthful things is protected.
And there are people that think that seat-belt laws are an affront to human dignity. What's the point?

Safety regulations exist because people wanted them, and the same is true here for privacy and data protections. Unless you can convince EU citizens en mass that they don't want the rights and protections afforded to them by this law then it really doesn't matter what anyone in particular person thinks.
5 USD per month + 0.50 for every 1 million requests my site gets... that a lot of money being wasted on feature that could be solved in another way.
> Russia recently approved similar law which requires all personal data of Russian citizens to be stored in a server hosted in Russia

I wouldn't call that a similar law at all, because the spirit of it is so that the government can have access to that data…
But almost a quarter of world GDP.
It's true that the GDPR has exemptions for "personal or household activity". Ideally, this should apply to non-commercial Mastodon instances.

However, some non-commercial Mastodon instances are now supporting thousands of users. An argument could be made that operating such instances is no longer a "personal or household activity".

Whilst I would hope that the local data protection agency would side with the Mastodon instance operator, it does put them in a rather difficult situation.

I think this possibility raises a lot of concern for operators of Mastodon instances and other online services.
In the past, philosophy had a lot of ground to cover. Today science covers all the ground on what is, what exists, what can be modeled. Philosophy only the ground of what matters.

For example, free will is entirely a science question. How to interpret what science can tell us so far, and how or if it matters, that is a philosophical question.
> The visual noise complaint is interesting.

I thought the same. I guess you could just modify your programming font to make the double quotes really tiny :)
It’s a racket business - private registeation should be default.
Wow, you just made my day. It's so fast. I don't think I've ever experienced such a fast latency in a nontrivial website. I was around since the NCSA Mosaic times and I remember a much simpler Web than today, but at that point computers and connections were rather crappy so it wasn't that fast either.

A pity I'm not from the US so most of the news aren't that interesting to me, I hope some European news outlet follows suit (although it won't happen).
Exactly, that's what I meant.
Only individual humans have human rights. Sovereign powers have rights which are capabilities, allowing the machinery of international law to function and maintain relative peace among sovereign powers. Where the two meet, there is often nastiness. The most dramatic example of this is war.

Borders are like cell membranes which protect the internal workings of civilized life, commerce, and the rule of law. Applying human morality to sovereign powers makes as much sense as applying human morality to cells or galaxies. A sovereign power should protect the individual human rights of its citizens first. This is what makes sense.
A lot of "GDPR work" I have witnessed recently has been totally useless and frankly I'm still not sure why I understand the tortuous paths some have chosen to follow.

I think a lot of that is down to decisions taken by US-based management that is simply clueless about how law works outside the US. And probably also only got their information from US-based lawyers that were either as clueless as themselves, or had incentives to make everything look very complicated.

On the other hand, most of the companies around me that have no links with the US were not particularily worried, and either consider that they are already compliant, conducted minimal work to be acting in good faith, or at worst are waiting for the regulatory body (CNIL here) to tell them what they are doing wrong, if that is the case.

However, I don't know any company that does shady things with their users' data, and things might be very different for those.
The Great Thirst, Wired (2002)
https://www.wired.com/2002/09/thirst/
Yep. He's pseudo-intellectual. His audience are the alt-right and racists. He hates women, and his end goal is getting us back to the 50s.
You think businesses are that forward thinking?

Definitely. Adhering to new regulations costs man hours and $, companies understandably would rather not be forced to comply. No grand conspiracy just long term bus dev.
Huh? Seems the opposite to me. US startups are the ones balkanizing, meaning home grown solutions to the EU will come about, ending US tech dominance.
>It’s only the last part we have a problem with. We’re not going to track down every trace of your data and delete it. We probably also won’t let you do an export.

If you can't easily delete or export my data, it means that you don't have a coherent, legible record of exactly how my data is being processed. You can't be sure if my data has been leaked or stolen. You can't guarantee that you'll be able to notify me in the event of a breach. You can't prove that my data was lawfully collected. I can't check the data you hold on me to ensure that it is accurate.

The GDPR is easy to comply with if your data protection policies and processes were decent to begin with. If you have read the text of the GDPR and can't see how you could bring your business into compliance, then you are almost certainly doing something seriously negligent or seriously shady.
Yeah, no, please stop this FUD.

You need to comply with the laws of the jurisdiction you operate in. If you don't operate in the EU (and having a presence on a global communication network does not qualify), EU laws are not applicable.

The onus is on concerned EU citizens to stick to .eu domains with a feel-good GDPR-VERIFIED banner if they are so inclined, not on the rest of the world to bend over.

As a non-EU business, I will pay my GDPR "fines" right after I'm done paying my Iran and North Korea issued fines. Cheers!
Funny simply isn't relevant. If you bludgeon someone to death in a funny way, it's still a crime.
> The fact that we expect juries and judges to rule on incomplete information is a concession to that reality.

I think that arises from practical difficulties in finding all the relevant information, not from a certainty that it is, in principle, undiscoverable.

I notice how you slip easily from a personal opinion in your penultimate paragraph to the pronouncement of a universal truth in the final one. This seems to be characteristic in philosophy, as displayed, for example, in Searle's 'Chinese Room' paper.

Nevertheless, I agree with the general position that there are unobservable things (that's just my opinion, of course.) I also believe that there are limits to reason alone as a means for discerning truth, and consequently I believe there are limits to what philosophy can achieve (though I see no limits on how much discussion it can generate.)
What is Harbor? The protocol to put securities on Blockchain
And if IP is the only PII you keep and if you destroy IP logs after let's say 6 month and write something about that in your TOS, you're good. And even if you're not, if hey contact you and are not happy with your way of handling data, they will warn you then offer solution.

You can even self-report if you're not sure you handled the privacy well, and they will point you the stuff you have to work on (and give you month to do that).

I Understand Americans are afraid of fine and lawsuits, but please don't be afraid. Read GDPR statement from regulatory instances, they are here to help business too.
Also, why is this on a tech site? Jordan Peterson and his pseudo science do not belong here.
I wonder if their definition of 'should' is in line with RFC 2119 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

I know nothing about European legal systems though
See also giant "install our app" banners on mobile sites, like Reddit
consciousness: https://psyarxiv.com/387h9
Tree-CNN:Hierarchical Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Incremental Learning
I'm of the opinion that at some point USA Today had demographic data on it's users. Maybe polled directly, or based on a list of names in their subscriber database cross referenced with some other database.

The idea that "user tracking" is now happening on the internet and not in print isn't true. Yes, internet tracking can follow you specifically, but that's because the systems have gotten faster and more connected.
Companies aren't that dumb, and law firms can't lie either so those conflicting articles show just how much interpretation is involved.
This is so cool. I like all the choices and will be adding it to my workflows for my personal projects.
So, what's with all the Facebook posts lately? John Carmack, Kent Beck, Jim Black, etc...

Is Facebook pushing this?