[nickpp]

GDPR: clicking cookie banners till the end of time while any ad-supported startup this side of the pond died or jumped ship to the US.

Right to be forgotten: a blessing for corrupt EU politicians who can finally scrub their record clean after buying out newspapers. Since they couldn’t buy the tech gigants…

USB-C: the largest cable throwaway to avoid… throwing cables away.

Replaceable batteries: something I never needed or wanted but hey, the wise Brussels regulators must know better what is good for me.

[janosdebugs]

I made use of the right to be forgotten extensively, thank you. Before that most accounts were undeletable.

[nickpp]

I am happy for you. Now, what do you think, was the ability for you to delete accounts worth the fact that the mayor of my town keeps winning elections in spite countless corruption charges and scandals - all conveniently wiped off the internet?

Regulations are usually well intended but second order effects are rarely thought out at all.

[cccbbbaaa]

The right to be removed from search results is not systematic, there is a balance to attain between privacy and public interest. Corruption charges from politicians will be hard to scrub, for instance. See:

GDPR, article 17(3)a: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

> 3. [Right to erasure] shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

> (a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;

More precise information from WP29. See the criteria list, beginning in page 13: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... This was from the DPD era, but still applies to GDPR.

How Google handles removal requests: https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224?hl=en&sjid=...

[nickpp]

GDPR is also used in my country to protect the identities of people in administration making sweetheart deals with their spouse/children/friends company for public works. All opaque now.

Also the privacy of politicians being investigated for corruption and graft. And corrupt judges for freeing their customers.

One evil piece of legislation. But hey, at least Google/Facebook/Amazon is not selling “my data”!

[janosd]

Corrupt politicians win elections in non-GDPR countries a whole lot too, unfortunately. I'm no political scientist, but I think it has a lot to do with people being unwilling to learn about and engage with the political system, among others. I live in Austria and when it comes to more complicated topics soch as politics, or IT for example, people are outright proud to claim ignorance. Most people actually don't know that they can and should write their EU MEPs. I have, and I have gotten into very fruitful conversations with them. However, instead of asking our kids to know institution names by heart, maybe asking them to engage with the system would be a good start.

Also, if I were into social studies, I'd look at social media and how they drive outrage, and a good way to show kids how such an influence operation works so they don't fall for it. My wife and I have been a little active in this area, but way too little to make any meaningful difference, unfortunately.

[troupo]

> GDPR: clicking cookie banners till the end of time

Please tell me where exactly GDPR requires this cookie banners. A direct quote is preferred.

Hint: those cookie banners are put their by the unregulated industry you're so willing to defend. Because they truly believe they have the god-given right to your data.

[nickpp]

Ever heard of second order effects? Dumb laws have consequences. I live in EU and browsing the web in EU has significantly degraded since GDPR compared to the US.

I can see a cause and effect, I don't need to invent conspiracies and accuse the industry that provides me goods and services I actually want.

[troupo]

> Ever heard of second order effects? Dumb laws have consequences.

What exactly is dumb about "you can't collect user data wholesale, but if you want to do it, you have to ask the user for consent"?

Why are so willing to blame the law for something that the industry is doing, and you're giving the industry the carte blanche to do whatever they please

> I don't need to invent conspiracies and accuse the industry that provides me goods and services I actually want.

There's no conspiracy. The conspiracy is literally what you're saying: that the law makes the good benevolent industry put up these cookie banners riddled with dark patterns that list hundreds of data brokers. Instead of, you know, literally following the law.

[nickpp]

> Why are so willing to blame the law for something that the industry is doing

When a whole industry (and, mind you, pretty much any business with a website, not just those selling ads) reacts identically to a law is either a conspiracy or I can safely blame the law for that.

I live in EU and my employer has a cookie banner even if never storing any private data nor having any ads on the website. Just for Google Analytics. But GDPR is so bad that the lawyers advised us to have the cookie banner just to be safe.

[troupo]

> reacts identically to a law is either a conspiracy or I can safely blame the law for that

Or the whole industry either doesn't care and relies on consultants like OneTrust to provide them with "GDPR Compliance" or know exactly what they are doing.

> Just for Google Analytics. But GDPR is so bad that the lawyers advised us to have the cookie banner just to be safe.

See, you're just parroting others (and your lawyers) even though in the last 6 years you could've read the law yourself.

You couldn't even show me where the law requires these dark patterns and selling of your data to the highest bidder out of hundreds of data brokers.

The reason your lawyers told your company to implement the banner is because your company is responsible for the data it transmits to third parties. And you've decided to use Google Analytics which collects significantly more data than is strictly required, and is a third party.[1]

"Oh mu god this bad no good law requires us to be careful with user data boo hoo"

[1] And is also problematic due to Cloud Act (US) and Schrems II (EU)

[nickpp]

So - let me get this straight - a whole industry does something in response to a law, something consultants and lawyers advise and approve of, but - you know better. You understand the law better than them, you understand their business better than them, you know their tools better than them.

Who are you then?! Are you a consultant? A lawyer? A business owner? Can you even show me in the law the accepted patterns for simple, common usage scenarios like analytics? Then for all the less commons scenarios for each business? Are you willing to guarantee your advice with your money? Can a business come to you and sue you if your advice was faulty and they got fined by one of the distributed institutions enforcing GDPR in any of the EU countries?