Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What should really scare you is the vast amount of privacy violations, data collection and tracking that is happening around the web. Imagine someone following you everywhere in the real world, even getting into your apartment and noting down everything you do.

If following the basic principles laid out in GDPR is too much of a hassle for you, you should probably not be in business anyway. It's not rocket science.




> 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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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?


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.


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?


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


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.


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?


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


Websites can’t block European users as a way to comply with the GDPR - if your business is based in Europe you have to comply regardless of whether you serve EU customers or not.

US-based websites can which would simply mean privacy-respecting EU-based competitors will take their place.



> 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.


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

No one can force you to do anything.


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.


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....


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


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


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?


People should have the freedom to not be manipulated.


Then you should stop writing right now because to communicate is to manipulate. People are manipulating machines. Sometimes to sell useless crap, other times (just as useless) ideas and ideologies. It comes with being a human and interacting with other humans.

People should have the freedom to choose who they listen to though, instead of others deciding for them.


I'm talking about dedicated departments in large companies that try to steer people into more purchases for profit. This is unethical unless people gave their consent.


Now you are simply describing advertising. I do not find it unethical, maybe unpleasant at most. It is the engine of commerce and driving progress. It is a sign of abundance of choice. And let's not forget a company still has to create a compelling product - no ads can override my free will.


-> no ads can override my free will.

Everyone thinks that they are resistant to advertising, yet it somehow works. It's called "wishful thinking", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising#Influ....

> And let's not forget a company still has to create a compelling product

Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising#Media...


It works because people want to buy things, as I said at the beginning of this exchange. Advertising works with them, not against them.


This is not what my links say. Do you have your own references?


I have a bit of knowledge about human nature and some applied logic. I do not need others to tell me how to think and I find Wikipedia a heavily biased and ideologized source.


Wikipedia is not a source. It's a list of sources. You can always add your own (reliable) sources to the list. Basing your decisions on "a bit of knowledge about human nature" is unscientific.


I am not a scientist. And I wouldn't trust scientists using Wikipedia "sources".


Scientific approach is not just for scientists. It's the only approach which works, according to existing (proven) evidence.


I seriously doubt the scientific approach includes Wikipedia.


It includes references in Wikipedia, because those must be from reliable sources.


The solution is to make a worldwide framework where people OWN their data. That's not what GDPR does, it in fact prevents people from selling their data at will.

(People's privacy is protected by constitutions. That is orthogonal to the ability of people to choose how to use their data)


So only the rich should have their human right to privacy protected?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: