Comment by olalonde
3 years ago
I wish GDPR compliance would have been opt-in. For example, a GDPR compliant website could have sent a custom header indicating compliance, which the browser could have displayed in the address bar (a bit like HTTPS). Consumers would then have been free make the decision to not use websites which aren't GDPR compliant. Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block any non GDPR compliant website.
Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed to opt out of anti-fraud legislation? Anti-money laundering? Human rights protections?
Yes? ...this was the original dream of non-national cyberspace and we almost had a hope at getting it. Then the second chance with web3 but this was also spoiled by people getting too greedy and too nasty too fast.
A parallel anonymous-and-free-for-all-but-with-payments-included, smth. like Tor-but-powered-by-IPFSv9-and-Etherv7, will probably emerge in a couple decades done right after a couple failed iterations. Some techs need hardware to catch up to be cheap enough, and only after a few failed attempts they manage to grow a trend... and it will probably will last until it's used to finance a proper starting of WW3 and by then banning it will be too late.
Anyway, we'll enjoy the hell out of ourselves on the new patreons-but-for-snuff-p03n, so it will all have been worth it :)
> Then the second chance with web3 but this was also spoiled by people getting too greedy and too nasty too fast.
Maybe the laws & regulations you complain about are actually necessary because otherwise people will keep being greedy & nasty and eventually outnumber honest people?
I believe your argument simply boils down to "laws shouldn't apply to people". Am I mistaken?
2 replies →
> this was the original dream of non-national cyberspace
cyberspace was about freeing the people and the flow of information between people, not the corporations that silo the data in their data centers for ptofit.
No, just GDPR? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation but I do see a reason why a user might want to access the non-GDPR web.
How would you write such a law?
You can't make exceptions based on what's convenient for some business.
Why should GDPR be opt-in but not the consumer minimum 2-year guarantee against faulty products?
> ? I don't see any valid reason a user might want to "opt out" of anti-fraud legislation
To commit frauds, for example?
8 replies →
The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle.
This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse.
The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now and it's good and healthy that corporations get push back for not respecting privacy.
> This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore
wouldn’t the market react?
The market would only react if people were actually aware of the privacy violations. This is what the GDPR is trying to address by making data processing require informed consent.
The vast majority of people (some even on HN) have absolutely no clue how advanced the stalking actually is. You hear every so often these anecdotes about people suspecting Facebook of listening to them; it's actually more creepy that the tracking is advanced enough to successfully infer conversations without actually listening in.
> Consumers who are more concerned about privacy could have set their browser to automatically block any non GDPR compliant website.
It may not be your intent, but defaults matter and what you're wishing for here is de-facto scuttling of the GDPR.
Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites? If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy?
> Are you implying that the vast majority of consumers aren't concerned with their privacy and would keep using GDPR-compliant websites?
False premise.
Users simply aren't aware, but once they learn about it, they become concerned,
> If that's the case, isn't the regulation somewhat against the spirit of democracy?
That's a really weird argument.
Anyway, that's not the case.