Shameless plug, but if you're in the SF Bay Area and want to learn more about GDPR, we're throwing an educational event on Wednesday 2/7: "GDPR: 4 letters, big trouble? Get up to speed on EU data privacy regulation" https://www.eventbrite.com/e/gdpr-4-letters-big-trouble-get-...

What a utter non-sense tone for the article!

> Europe wants to conquer the world all over again.

So Europe makes new regulations that improve the life of european people and they try to spin it up as a global domination move. As a European I am really happy that I am more protected. If a company wants to make business with me I expect them to follow the local regulations! That is not a new world order plot, cmon.

Stronger regulation some times is better when made with the citizens in mind, see the TTIP. Why would we (europeans) want to reduce our food quality regulations? Why wouldn't we want a better data protection?

Specially after Equifax scandal, I am so happy that things are changing over Europe.

Edit: specified better what I think is non-sense

I thought this was an interesting angle:

"U.S. policymakers argue that American data protection standards, enshrined in the constitution and enforced aggressively by the Federal Trade Commission, do more to guard against misuse than European standards, which often can be more bark than bite."

Can someone more familiar with the US constitution elaborate on what exactly it says about data protection?

Power and influence flow through the end of a pen rather than a gun. Very EU. Considering the generally poor state of data privacy and use of data about people, I must admit I think GDPR is for the good.

I do like the idea of a world where nations compete with themselves to offer the best data privacy protections.

I had just posted this GDPR guide with steps to implement the mandatory data protection:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16310501

https://www.eugdpr.org as they didn't provide link in article

My hat is off to EU, doing what is right to protect individuals from the evil do'ers/

I know the knee-jerk reaction on Hacker News will be that this is really a positive outcome ... but I think people are not actually digesting the consequences of the wholesale export of EU regulations across the world.

The EU has many regressive regulations based on outdated notions with regards to the rights of individuals.

Just one example: in the US if someone is involved in egregious fraud (such as ripping off thousands of individuals in a scam) then the US says that such information constitutes news and that even if its old information from a decade ago its relevant, and a platform like Kickstarter or Google can keep the information online for users to assess before transacting with the individual.

In Europe this could be deemed illegal. There's a right to be forgotten in Europe. And sometimes even relevant and newsworthy information can be ordered to be purged from databases.

The Europeans don't want companies or users deciding on the rules for platforms. They want to make one rule and apply it across all platforms. Not only that, they don't really think through the implications of some standards. Like if there is a right to be forgotten, can companies like Kickstarter really afford to scrutinize every request for deletion of data and use a lawyer to determine if the request is justified? Of course not. They will just make an algorithm and automatically delete the information. The value of the platform in the long term will decline as fraud from years ago is purged.

There is a cost and benefit to all types of censorship. Censorship of information about individuals isn't always just positive. There are lots of serial fraudsters who get away with decades of shenanigans because information about them is not readily available.

Also, and this is more controversial, I happen to think many types of privacy (but not all) are really just cultural artifacts of right now and don't have much utility from a political and economic perspective. Of course there is a value to protecting the privacy of private communication to prevent the rise of totalitarian states, etc., but some other kinds of privacy are really just around to avoid personal embarrassment. But the standards for embarrassment are always changing. At one time we were all running around half-naked and fornicating in small tribes where there was literally no privacy. So there's nothing innate in our nature that says that certain activities must be kept private. Its merely custom that such and such activities can be used to embarrass an individual.

In the future, it may be that even presidential candidates will have some embarrassing selfies distributed online, and maybe even some dic pics or boob shots from their youth ... and probably nobody will care much ... except to say ... damn, my future president has a fire crotch ... or something like that. But it will be said in passing, and nobody will care much. Just like nobody gave two shits about Obama smoking choom.

undefined

This is interesting. Maybe one of the few things Europe contributes/exports (in tech)