Hacker News Reader

The GDPR does not limit the possibility of schools sending out emails to their alumni, it just imposes requirements for doing it right. The GDPR recognizes the risk of the school or someone with access to the school's email db spamming, selling the addresses or harassing students / alumni, and the risk of someone hacking the school servers and stealing the data or targeting students. These are not theoretical risks... they are things that happen, and become more frequent as more of our lives move online and our emails get tied to critical processes.

This is of course absolutely true, and I did say that there is some merit to the goals of GDPR. It is merely that in adding this extra work, little is gained. Let me expand a bit, it was one-liner at the end.

My school in fact had my contact details from way before GDPR was a thing. Recently, they were forced to write to confirm that they were allowed to continue contacting me. If I had not responded, they would be compelled to delete my information.

So if I'd missed the message, I would unknowingly be disconnected from further communications.

And what is to be gained from this? All the risks of someone hacking the school system are the same, someone could still spam everyone, and so on. Why not just have an opt-out system, defaulting to stay-on-the-list? Then people who care to be removed can do so, but we can assume quite confidently that most alumni of a school want to remain in contact.

It just smells like someone had a use case they were thinking of that perhaps made sense to have a default-remove, but they ended up imposing it on everyone.

> For a recent confirmation of this, witness the enormous amount of effort expended on GPDR compliance. None of it could have been done before computing power became so cheap that it needed to be wasted on doing it.

Everyone complains about useless procedures, but I think the real culprit is that we have no framework for discussing value.

We do - money. That's why GDPR breaches cost lots of money - to make sure organisations don't allow breaches to happen.

The reason the GDPR and other privacy legislation was introduced is because of the widespread abuse of people's private data for commercial and political gain.

Attempting to address this isn't a waste of time or useless.

It makes no sense to blame the people trying to solve this problem, rather than those who created it in the first place.

If anything, the GDPR didn't go far enough. Though, that's often the case with legislation trying to stop corporate malfeasance.

In my opinion - and speaking more generally, not just regarding privacy - not enough large companies have been obliterated for their harmful behaviours. They just pay a fine, or bribe some officials, and move on.

Attempting to address this isn't a waste of time or useless.

It is if you fail.

It makes no sense to blame the people trying to solve this problem, rather than those who created it in the first place.

Now we have two problems: the original problem that GDPR failed to solve and GDPR useless warnings.

It hasn't failed. There's a lot more to the GDPR than the warnings you see on some websites - many of which likely don't constitute proper informed consent anyway and so would be unlawful.

When I criticize GDPR is exactly for the warnings you see on most websites. They're a nuisance and don't prevent data collection. I need to use technical measures to have some privacy and now I also need to use additional technical measures to avoid the crappy warnings.

You say warnings are unlawful, and that's even worse, because that means they've created an unenforceable law. Or what are they waiting to prosecute those violations?

I'm not against data protection. I'm again incompetence.

> I'm against incompetence

Are you also against government waste?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8

I gave it a minute. Not very funny, frankly.

It makes companies really think: Are we allowed to have this data? Do we need this data? How do we handle this data? Can we delete someone's data? And so on.

The consent forms are just a tip of iceberg and the stupid thing. But under everything it forces companies to do things they might have not done before. And it's also a tool for developers who want things to be better. As there is finally slight risk to point out.

> If anything, the GDPR didn't go far enough.

Exactly. If it went far enough the solution could have been much simpler. But instead of the real solution, politicians preferred the appearance of the solution which created enormous complexity and didn't solve the problem.

what would the solution you wanted look like?

We do have that framework, it's called supply and demand. Collectively, we buy what we need the most, at the best price. We sell what we can offer, at the best price. Value is determined in this way. Prices encompass not just currency, but also preferences.

Bureaucracies grow because people demand them to grow, it's just not that obvious. Something somewhere is always wrong and unjust, so people petition politicians for change. The tool of a politician is lawmaking, so more laws are created. Implementing a law requires a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy requires managers. Managers want to hire more subordinates, not less. Subordinates are paid by the hour and promoted according to plan, so there is no incentive to work faster. In effect, everyone involved is always busy with something and nobody appears lazy or irresponsible.

I would argue that the tax system of (in this example) Australia is exactly what the Australians asked for, the system that they deserve. They just don't know they asked for it.

What you have written is in fact a circular argument that confirms what I wrote about value. There is no extrinsic value in the economically orthodox description of value that you describe in the first line.

So when the Aussies get their tax system, they must have asked for it. Why? Because they got it.

This is an absurdity. Have you ever complained about the proliferation of utterly terrible reality TV shows? Very few people think it's anything but mindless garbage. But it's there, so it must be wanted, because it's there.

Plenty of other examples in society of things that exist but nobody appreciates them.

Anyway, been reading Mazzucato recently.

> What you have written is in fact a circular argument that confirms what I wrote about value.

It is not a circular argument, it is a connection between cause and distal effect.

> There is no extrinsic value in the economically orthodox description of value that you describe in the first line.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

> So when the Aussies get their tax system, they must have asked for it. Why? Because they got it.

This is a misrepresentation. By demanding a more just system of taxation, they asked for laws, which ask for bureaucracy, which ask for labor resources, which consume tax revenue. All of these are logical implications, there is no circularity at all.

Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered.

> This is an absurdity.

Not at all. Usually there's a plausible rational explanation for why things had to end up the way they did, but such explanations might be uncomfortable.

> Have you ever complained about the proliferation of utterly terrible reality TV shows?

I don't watch TV.

> Very few people think it's anything but mindless garbage. But it's there, so it must be wanted, because it's there.

Very few people think McDonald's serves good food, yet a lot of people buy it. Similarly, nobody would continue to spend money to produce more and more TV shows that nobody wants to watch. Being "mindless garbage" clearly isn't an impediment to success with the right audience. Consider the pareto principle.

> Plenty of other examples in society of things that exist but nobody appreciates them.

Just because it isn't "appreciated" doesn't mean there isn't demand for it.

> Anyway, been reading Mazzucato recently.

Doesn't seem to have done you any good.

> Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered.

I really wish there was a 1-3 word phrase for this concept, because I keep needing one. I am hopeful that the field of AI Safety will give us one.

This just confirms what I said above. The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory.

It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another. If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all. Plus you can't explain a number of common observations.

> This just confirms what I said above.

Why? Because you said so?

> The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory.

I wasn't aware that you're a mind reader.

> It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another.

There's a shortcut: I simply define value in terms of supply and demand, the exchange of goods and services, based on subjective disposition.

If you are clamoring for some other theory of value, feel free to do so. I think that's a waste of time.

> If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all.

If you believe that, then any further discussion must be fruitless.

> Plus you can't explain a number of common observations.

I probably can, but you won't like the explanation.