[thedevil]

For the proponents of GDPR, do you think that these are good ideas? edit: Why? What's the argument for them?

> The GDPR prohibits such forced consent and any form of bundling a service with the requirement to consent

> a penalty of 4% of global revenue

edit: On the first, if companies use (for example) personalized ads to pay for the service, why should they be forced to provide the service without the source of funding? If you disagree with that, you can just not use the service.

[sbov]

Not all business models are legal. If the companies don't want to abide by the rules of the EU, they can opt not provide services to people in the EU.

[thedevil]

> Not all business models are legal.

But why make this one illegal?

We can make wedding planners illegal if we don't like them and then just say "not all business models are legal.

But that doesn't explain why. Why stop people from engaging in a transaction that both sides consider to be a win?

[icebraining]

Because "in the EU, personal information cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset: according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the processing of personal data requires protection to ensure a person's enjoyment of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression and association".

https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-09-23_...

[thedevil]

It's a little unclear to me how this answers the question. Can you connect the dots here?

I don't think not giving you services if you don't opt in violates your "enjoyment of the right to respect for private life..."

Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to trade use of your personal information for services?

If not, how does your quote tie in?

[anonymousab]

> Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to trade use of your personal information for services?

I think that's the crux.

That information is to be regarded as part of some inalienable rights, that those who have those rights cannot give up, even if they want to.

Not allowing people to waive their rights prevents a race to the bottom, in theory.

[icebraining]

Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to trade use of your personal information for services?

That's the principle behind the GDPR, yes.

[KozmoNau7]

No. You are still allowed to do that, but you have to explicitly opt-in.

[Tomte]

For the same reason we disallow indentured servitude, even if the poor guy would „really“ love to „work“ for the other guy.

For the same reason we disallow duels, even if both parties feel it would be a great way to settle a dispute.

[thedevil]

Do you think Google requiring use of my personal info in exchange for free services should be banned for the same reason as duels?

What is that reason exactly? I don't see what the two have in common.

[Tomte]

Ordre public (public policy).

[thedevil]

So are your norms and morals offended enough to justify banning such a business model that requires opt-in?

Is this the basis of our disagreement?

[Tomte]

Furthermore, they can adjust their business.

The GDPR does not outlaw ads. It only makes using the worst types of ads difficult or maybe even impossible.

And that‘s unequivocally good!

[thedevil]

I prefer some targeted ads. I'd like to be able to opt in or out. Why do you think that what I want from Google should not be allowed if it's a win for me, Google, and advertisers?

[anonymousab]

You have to explicitly opt-in now.

Perhaps a middle-ground will be centralized batch opt-in services that opt you into collecting for most ad networks and sites.

The requirement not to deny service for people who don't opt-in should prevent that from being used as an end-run around the regulations, but we'll see.

[dazc]

'You have to explicitly opt-in now.'

I'm seeing targeted ads so where did I opt in? I'm not saying I didn't but the fact that I can't recall doing so is a bit of puzzle?

[inetknght]

Are you a European citizen? If not, then I don't think there's much more you can do.

[icebraining]

You can! It's totally fine for Google to ask for your consent to track you! They just can't make your use of the site dependent on your consent.

[tchock23]

Why not? As a consumer if I don't consent I simply don't use the service. Is it my right to use Google?

[solarkraft]

Would you seriously, actually ever stop to use Google? They have a gigantic monopoly on so many things.

[icebraining]

I answered in another post of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163342

[Tomte]

Great! The GDPR allows that.

It simply doesn‘t allow you to decide for me that I would really love targetted ads.

Hence, „consent“.

[taeric]

I would reword. Not all business models are healthy for society. Or their workers. Or their consumers.

Searching for mechanisms to limit these models seems fair. I hope it is carried forth on good faith and gets good results.

[anonymousab]

When taken with the main goal being compliance, not money extraction, yeah.

It remains to be seen if that ideal is upheld, and what kind of creative workarounds and ideals companies will try to explore.

As with any regulation or law, it has potential to be overbearing, favor incumbents and/or end up doing the opposite of its initial intentions.

That's the nature of anything society tries to do, though. If it doesn't work right, change it later.

[Tomte]

The first is an excellent idea.

The second... I don‘t care whether it‘s 3, 4 or 5 percent. But the big idea is „global“ and „revenue“, which again is excellent.

[Sylos]

I do think these are good ideas. I think so, because "If you disagree with [services using your data to finance themselves], you can just not use the service" is not actually a thing for the following reasons:

1) These services have no interest in actually providing you with truthful, complete or comprehensible information about what they do with your data. You actually cannot form an opinion that would allow you to judge the situation.

2) Even as someone in IT, who frequently reads about information being correlated or used in creative ways to cause damage, I do not feel like I could fully judge the impact of giving any piece of information about me to a company, even when I'm fully informed about the things they do with my data. The way they anonymize data might get proven to be deanonymizable. We might have crazy advances in technology, leading to modern cryptography being a joke and criminals decrypting the information that I produce right now. We might have some change in government, which for whatever fuck kind of reason feels like anyone who can be proven to have smiled at a Jew in their life, should be executed.

And if I am in no position to judge something like that, the layperson is certainly not either and does need the law to help them out.

3) It's not anymore possible to live life by just not using services that violate your privacy.

Most webpages have Google Analytics on them. Or Google Ads. Google anything.

The prevailing desktop operating system is Windows, which is headed towards Windows 10.

The prevailing mobile operating system is Android.

The prevailing social network is Facebook.

The prevailing messenger is WhatsApp.

The prevailing video platform is YouTube.

And far too many people see no problem sharing your e-mail conversations with Google.

Even the bloomin train that I take to work has a surveillance cam in it, like it was the most normal of things. Which hadn't been legal prior to the GDPR either, they just didn't give a shit, because punishment was basically nonexistent.

And no, I don't consider setting up a farm in the middle of buttfuck nowhere to be "living life". I cannot afford to be a social outcast, to not use the internet etc..

[taysic]

About #2, I'm not clear on this: to many services, esp ones like Facebook, a user who does not want targeted ads would not hand over any less data about themselves. And the user would have no additional transparency into their behind the scenes tools or operations under GDPR.