Hacker News Reader

Comment by franciscop | Hacker News Reader

Well yeah, that's the meaning of laws/regulation, they apply to everyone. If someone in Europe wants a free service in exchange for [something illegal] well sorry but not allowed. That's not the hard part of this whole debate...

View on HN

Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? That user's have the right to their own data? If they decide they want a free service in exchange for it, they're only 'hurting' themselves after all, and if they really have a right to their data (instead of a right to have their rulers tell them what to do with their data) then they should be able to make that choice! You can't act like everything that's "illegal" is equally bad, by grouping "personal data" with other "[something illegal]" items. That's a pretty severe case of equivocation.

Is it really the case that they are only hurting themselves?

The effect of targeted advertising on platforms such as Facebook seems to have had a very negative effect on democracy, for example.

I'm not sure I see that, but I'd be willing to consider that possibility if there was any data to back that up instead of hysterical op-eds and articles. I see a lot of those, but not a lot in the way of convincing evidence.

Although, FB in general doesn't seem to help the political discourse, I don't think it's anyone's job to decide what ways of communication and discussion are right for a democracy, because if you control where people can speak and what they can say, it's a short step until you control how they vote.

> Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with.

An individual has negligible negotiation power. That's why we use regulations as a form of collective bargaining.

Wait what? I cannot say illegal things are illegal? The only association I made is that things that break the law are illegal, which is a tautology and obviously true. I never said everything illegal is the same.

Personal data has many meanings and for some, this data might bring their literal death so of course it's a serious topic. Not common in the last ~30 years of western history, but that's just a tiny slice of time/location so of course it's sensible many of us want to keep personal data, well, personal.

I apologise, I might have misunderstood your point then. I assumed you were saying something more interesting then a simple tautology. Why say a tautology?

I thought what yout were saying is that we shouldn't want it to be legal because it's illegal and therefore bad.

> Except for the fact that in this case the "something illegal" is the user's own data, which they should get to decide what to do with.

And what websites have been open with their data collection before the GDPR forced them to? When I opened the data collection dialogs introduced by the GDPR for the first time I expected maybe two or three entries, and it was near consitently closer to 40! WTF. Calling it "user choice" when the site owner deliberately ommits that kind of information is dishonest at best.

Forcing companies to tell users what they're doing with their data so the users can have informed choice isn't really my issue here.

The issue I have is the rules in what can be done with that data. Because those rules make it so that the users don't get to decide what they're OK with being done with their data.

If I'm being really honest here, the GDPR seemed pretty well intentioned, IMHO it just went a little far.

Maybe I read a different text than you but I have yet to encounter a scenario in which a user would consent to processing that the law still would not allow. Assuming the consent was gathered according to the basic principles of GDPR, fair, transparent, specific etc.

Maybe I am missing something. Would you provide examples? I would be very glad to learn if there are edge cases I may be overlooking.

The GDPR does not restrict much what you can do with personal data in principle, it does require much more effort in explicitly informing the user (also for updates) and it does grand inalienable right to users on their own data.

Those "inalienable" rights are kind of the issue here: it's telling the businesses and users how they can sell that data and what they can use it for, so it's not a choice by the user on what they do with their data, and more a collective decision with the government.

As for explicitly informing the user about what they do with their data, that part I have no quarrel with.

My point would be that there are a lot of illegal business practices. You as a costumer cannot buy expired food.

> it's telling the businesses and users how they can sell that data and what they can use it for, so it's not a choice by the user on what they do with their data, and more a collective decision with the government.

That is true, and that should happen in cases where market incentives do not align with social or public interests.

I see where your coming from, and it makes sense. Your point of view, if I understand correctly, is that the government should protect consumers from accidentally making bad choices. And I get that. It seems like it would be nice. But I don't think that's a road we want to go down, because if the government gets to make choices for people in one area, why not others? And why are we assuming that the government always knows better than the people that are actually in situations?

I mean, if I'm being honest my views on government aren't very common, so it'll probably be expedient to agree to disagree. (:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com