[tjansen]

> What should really scare you is the vast amount of privacy violations, data collection and tracking that is happening around the web.

Even if it would scare me (it really doesn't), as an EU citizen I would care about surveillance by the EU, not by the US.

> Imagine someone following you everywhere in the real world, even getting into your apartment and noting down everything you do.

To do what? Collect a lot of useless information? I would bother me if someone I know does it. I don't care if some abstract entity in a different country thousands of miles away does it.

[fauigerzigerk]

What I'm concerned about is that companies collecting data on me may not be able to keep it safe (e.g Equifax). I could become a victim of identity theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, corrupt officials, litigious opponents or authoritarian regimes.

[tjansen]

I understand that concern, but GDPR only makes a small difference here.

[piaste]

Small? The single best way a company can reassure me that they won't leak my data is by not having it in the first place.

[fsflover]

It allows to see which data they have on you and demand it's deletion in many cases.

[tjansen]

Yes, but how often do people do this? How many people can even read the JSON files you get from most companies?

[blitzar]

Ahh the classic I have nothing to hide defence. Old as time itself.

[tjansen]

Yes, but why can't I decide for myself whether I have something to hide or not? I don't have a problem with people who want privacy. I can also imagine situations in which I would want privacy. But what if I don't?

[blitzar]

If you dont want privacy, you are 100% free to make that choice. However, the default should be that things are private unless that privilege is waived.

[tremon]

You can decide for yourself. You cannot decide for anyone else. The point of the GDPR is that companies cannot make that choice for you either -- which incidentally increases the value of those that do want to sell their data, so you should be happy about this regulation because it increases your net worth.

Can you give me an example of a company that actually wants to buy your data and remunerate you for it?

[Nextgrid]

The GDPR's objective is exactly to give you that choice.

[tjansen]

No, as a site is not allowed to block users who do not agree to tracking cookies. The result is that many sites will rather geoblock all users than implement GDPR.

[Nextgrid]

That's doesn't contradict my point that the GDPR's goal is to give users a choice. In fact, if websites can block users then it's not really a choice isn't it?

[tjansen]

If websites block ALL European users because they don't want to deal with GDPR, users don't have a choice either.

[fsflover]

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

[fsflover]

> To do what? Collect a lot of useless information?

To force you into buying something you don't need, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism. Also, to obtain your commercial secrets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes.

[kmlx]

> To force you into buying something you don't need

No one can force you to do anything.

[ohgodplsno]

That is surely why most large companies have entire teams human behavior psychologists, because they can't force you to do anything. Definitely not to figure out how to get something drilled deep in your brain so that the next time you see it, you're inching ever closer to buying it.

In fact, that's why Facebook ran secret psychological experiments on unwilling participants by modifying their timeline! Because they can't force you to do anything.

[fsflover]

If it was true, the surveillance capitalism would not exist. You can call this "trick you into buying useless staff" if you wish. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_advertising#Consumers....

[nickpp]

People have been buying useless crap since the begging of time. It didn't start with targeted advertising.

[fsflover]

Are you implying that tricking people into buying more useless staff is fine?

[nickpp]

Who are you to decide for other people what they find useless or not? And are you implying people have no free will to decide what to buy and they need others to "trick" them or to prevent them from buying?

Do you consider yourself above other people and some sort of arbiter for their decisions?