Hacker News Reader

Comment by aninhumer | Hacker News Reader

If you're not collecting any information "interfacing with the regulator" means replying to their email by saying "we're not collecting any information". (Assuming they even got that far, given that they'd likely take a look at your website and notice you aren't collecting any information.)

I'm not sure what's risky, expensive or time consuming about that.

View on HN

Consumer says “I think you’re lying” and forwards to their national data regulator. (This is as simple as writing an e-mail.)

Data regulator now asks you questions. You must respond. Hopefully they agree with you. But maybe not! Twenty-eight regulators appointed by different political groups are a complex system. You will need to gain expertise on them or hire someone with it.

All I’m saying is that time and money might be better used elsewhere. Particularly by someone just making side projects.

> Twenty-eight regulators appointed by different political groups are a complex system. You will need to gain expertise on them or hire someone with it. All I’m saying is that time and money might be better used elsewhere. Particularly by someone just making side projects.

If you're not collecting data, then all of this is irrelevant. You just say "I'm not collecting data". There's no nuance here.

> If you're not collecting data, then all of this is irrelevant. You just say "I'm not collecting data". There's no nuance here.

How do you prove you are not collecting data?

If your use default configs of Apache, or Nginx, your access.log is probably infringing GDPR. It’s impossible to prove you’re not collecting this without an extensive audit.

> There's no nuance here

This is your interpretation. Many prominent lawyers disagree.

In any case, convincing a regulator that you are not, in fact, collecting data could be harrowing, distracting and expensive. The risk of incurring those costs probably isn’t a smart one to take for a hacker or very early-stage start-up.

> > There's no nuance here > This is your interpretation. Many prominent lawyers disagree.

I'd like to point out that it's in the interest of a proeminent lawyer to tell you that their services are needed...

So in this hypothetical scenario, for some reason the regulator looks at your website, which presumably has no personal information inputs, no tracking analytics etc. and which you have asserted collects no personal information, and they decide that you're still somehow collecting information, and for some reason hounding your low traffic website is the best use of their limited resources.

Taking that risk (of a regulator mis-interpreting something and needing clarifications, again and again, or worse, mis-interpreting something and getting hostile) across the EU’s twenty-eight members is a good one for Facebook. Probably not for a hobbyist.

What exactly is the risk to a hobbyist here?

Even if we assume a completely bizarre and pathologically incompetent regulator that somehow ends up zeroing in on some tiny website which exhibits no evidence of violation, the hobbyist might have to... delete their website?

> What exactly is the risk to a hobbyist here?

Have you ever responded to a regulatory enquiry?

If you have then perhaps you could share your experience more explicitly. It would be helpful to clarify your point of view.

So, we’re hoping bureaucray will save ourself from itself by its innefiency?

> I'm not sure what's risky, expensive or time consuming about that.

"replying to their email"

https://jacquesmattheij.com/so-your-start-up-receive-the-nig...

The article is about someone who is collecting data. If you're not collecting data, you can just reply saying you don't have any data about them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com