Hacker News Reader

Comment by luckylion | Hacker News Reader

> As I said: if your interpretation was correct (in this context) it would be a loophole so big it would make the rule meaningless.

That's my point - actually, not a lot has changed. There's just larger fines and more bureaucratic hoops.

It's why you still do see all kinds of tracking - but you'll now get information about it.

View on HN

Did you try the search I gave you?

Yes, and I've also talked about this on multiple occasions with a lawyer friend who works in privacy law. A typical claim to legitimate interests would be for optimizing the website and ads on the website for example. It's so commonly used exactly because it's a very simple one-size-fits-all approach.

I have not heard statements going against this from any lawyers.

Was this a European or American lawyer?

I'm interested because my understanding has been most Europeans understood it the same way I did.

European, from Germany.

Wow.

Not saying I fully believe that explanation yet, but I'll try to find out more.

BTW and FWIW: I'm not the one downvoting you and I disagree with those who do.

> "It's so commonly used exactly because it's a very simple one-size-fits-all approach".

ICO says this [1] about choosing a lawful basis: "You must not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. No one basis should be seen as always better, safer or more important than the others, and there is no hierarchy in the order of the list in the GDPR."

I think I'll stay clear of your lawyer advise.

[1]: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com