Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations on EU Copyright Directive (techdirt.com)
405 points by rwmj 28 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 87 comments



So what I get from this is that the system works. When enough people voice their concerns the people in charge actually listen.

At least there seems to be no internet disaster as of now? I usually postpone my doomsday scenarios until they are fact . One just has to be vigilant in any new proposals that is made on this subject. And scream loudly if the lobbyists go at it again.

Eventually I hope EU completely bans organised lobbying, nothing good ever comes from pandering to special interests.


>So what I get from this is that the system works.

This is definitely really worth repeating and something everyone should always keep in mind. It's very dangerous for educated people and experts in particular to allow apathy or over cynicism to obscure the fact that it is truly possible to lobby successfully for positive changes too.

>I usually postpone my doomsday scenarios until they are fact.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? You mean you postpone your contingency plan activation, or do you mean warning people around it? But if you think it really is a doomsday scenario and you don't warn people until after it's done how do you keep it from happening in the first place?

>Eventually I hope EU completely bans organised lobbying, nothing good ever comes from pandering to special interests.

How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? I know that most of the population, even if they're massively effected by the destructive effects of IP maximalism, are not actually cognizant of it at all. That makes those of us opposed to it "special interests" too doesn't it? We're trying to lobby for technocratic policy changes that will benefit us personally even if it will also benefit others too. It would likely benefit many of us commercially too, which isn't an inherently bad thing. How do you create an objective set of rules around that?


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? You mean you postpone your contingency plan activation, or do you mean warning people around it? But if you think it really is a doomsday scenario and you don't warn people until after it's done how do you keep it from happening in the first place?

What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim.

However I have no issue in warning people that "if the proposal is accepted as is it would do great harm".

>How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are? I know that most of the population, even if they're massively effected by the destructive effects of IP maximalism, are not actually cognizant of it at all. That makes those of us opposed to it "special interests" too doesn't it? We're trying to lobby for technocratic policy changes that will benefit us personally even if it will also benefit others too. It would likely benefit many of us commercially too, which isn't an inherently bad thing. How do you create an objective set of rules around that?

They can still organise, spread information and argue their point. I might have been a bit broad in my strokes. There should be no organised "secret" lobbying, that is I wish all that the politicians do and talk about in their official capacities should be recorded and open. This includes internal party meetings, lobbyist meetings etc. It is very hard to create this objectively but the end-game for me is to get back-door politics out in the open.

I once read a book by L.E. Modesitt Jr names "Haze" which has a system that I actually find very appealing. It's a bit much to recap it here but if one likes to explore different systems this is a good one imho.


>What I mean is that I don't go screaming "the internet is doomed" for months before the actual vote like I've seen many forums posts and articles claim.

The only reason this didn't pass is because people screamed at the tops of their lungs.


Yeah, the way I see it if the system only works because there was a bunch of hyperbolic alarmism to balance out the awful impulse of industry-aligned legislators, the system wasn't actually working that well. It may be functioning, but the fact that this battle will get harder and harder to fight every time it happens (which could be eternal) means that's not really something that works well.


Right, this result doesn't mean the system works, it means that the big red EMERGENCY STOP button works, as long as everyone screams loud enough.

We'll see if the system itself works if the next time the industry makes a push for stupid legislation like this and the politicians push back because they know their constituents don't want it from the last time. How confident are you that this will happen?


Yes but the internet was not doomed as we now see. I could have been but it was not at the point in time (presents form vs conditional form).

I have no issues with warning people what can happen.


The internet escaped the impending doom because it didn't pass. It didn't pass because people acted. And People acted because of the numerous alarms about the impending doom.


Yes, that's not what I am arguing and I think it might be a distinction that is different from my mother tongue and English.

I've seen people arguing that "the internet is doomed" as if there is nothing one can do about it and the event that doomed it has already happened. I've even seen headlines of that form on HN. It is the same is if someone had written "the coral reef is doomed", then I would think that someone had dropped a nuclear bomb on it and that the event already happened.

As I said, I'm not against warning people what _can_ happen but I don't go around saying it already has happened. If it has happened then there is no action one can take (i.e., the dooms day scenario has already happened). That's what I wanted to convey in my first post really.

In any case it's very much a topic derailment in this case and I apologise for that.


Dude, people understand that "this copyright law has doomed the internet" means "if you stop this or undo it, it won't be a reason for the internet's doom". Fortunately, human interpretation is fluid enough that they understand this.

Just like if I say "damn it! I left the stove on! My house will burn down" the driver will say "oh shit! Let's go back" not "Since you have guaranteed that the house is going to burn down at this point I am not going to act. By a strict interpretation of your words, there is nothing that can be done. Let us continue onward to the cinema"

Seriously, man. Come on. This isn't a language thing.


I completely agree with you, however: My own native tongue actually has bigger strictness than English (since as a Slavic language with Germanic influence it has many grammatical features that are not a part of common English), so I can see where the GP us coming from. There indeed were newspapers that claimed that the Internet is already doomed and they can't do anything at all. Sadly in my country, fear mongering is the leading newspaper marketing strategy, so this is not uncommon, and some people have learned to take them with a huge grain of salt. The problem lies in the word "some" - I share the country with millions of people that believe them literally, and it can be clearly seen in our national voting results.


So my last reply on this and the nesting is not going further, as it is really very off topic. But your first example sentence is in past tense and implies that the law already has passed (at least that is my interpretation) and the second example sentence is in future tense, not present tense.

But it might also be a cultural difference and not language difference I don't know.


It doesn't really matter if the law is already passed. Undoing a law is harder than preventing a law, but not by all that much.


Transparency in politics has actually been shown to help rather than hinder lobbyists:

http://www.congressionalresearch.org/TransparencyProblem.htm...


But they can still have lunch with members of the general public (including lobbyists) in secret and make secret arrangement then present another argument for their motives in public.

If it was impossible to contact a politician in secret the amount of legal (you get a nice consultant position after the political career) and illegal bribes would hopefully go down.

This does not stop a politician from doing something in the hopes that it will be rewarded later without prior contact though.

Also to add, this is a pipe dream, something that the current crop of politicians would never accept as it would reduce them to merely being a spokesperson for the people they represent.


"If it was impossible to contact a politician"

this is why we should be voting on ideas and not on politicians. my opinions don't accept bribes for their new garage doors...


As I understand the research, it's specifically public voting records that give lobbyists a lot more power over members of congress (donations can be made conditional on certain votes, and lobbyists can verify that they are getting what they are paying for).


Interesting, but maybe lobbyists aren't 100% in it to get their putative goals. Maybe, just like managers, they get a lot of enjoyment out of manipulation and exercise of power.

That would certainly explain a lot.


I think it’s very dangerous to tell people not to go around claiming the internet is doomed.

People doing that appears to have been the very thing that built the consensus to stop the legislation.


Not to put words in anyone mouth, but I believe that what people like (my projections of) tyfon find irritating is when alarmism come without understanding.

For example people believing it had already passed or grossly misinterpreting the effects.

Of course a big part of the alarmism was thanks to memes, so it is understandable that using them as a medium left out some information...


> organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are

https://edri.org/ , https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ , and the various Pirate Parties. Green parties tend to be well-informed about this, although they do vary a lot from "bright green" to extremely nuts.

I'm not sure banning lobbying is possible, but banning bribery disguised as "contributions" might be. Although the UK system for this has recently collapsed.


How did the UK work out when it did run?

My libertarian side wants to push back on these controls but after seeing Sheldon Adelson basically write the recent legislation on online gambling that directly benefits his own interests in the industry I’m becoming far more skeptical of its value.

It’s sold as allowing more freedom for private citizens and industry but in reality the greatest winners will be the giant companies, who can naturally buy the most influence (and get their old private school buddies in Congress) to squeeze out their competition and build barriers to entry.

Which is fundamentally anti-private business. And which reflects a long trend in American politics where the “free market” label is used to sell things very much anti-free market, which then causes more people to blame free markets as the problem (when all along it was the business elite winning over the political elite for gain, not anything like a market).


To be honest, only marginally better, but there was a bit more sanity in the discourse before FB ads from anonymous sources, and a bit more restraint before someone figured out that they could exploit the NI-only rules allowing anonymity for donations to put half a million quid through for Brexit.

(NI politics has been deeply dysfunctional since the 60s; it managed a decade and a half of normal politics before collapsing in a fraud scandal. Its devolved government has been shut down for two years. A bomb has just gone off in Derry, perhaps a sign of more to come. Brexit and the small government majority has allowed this dysfunctionality to leak into meanland government)

Weak investigations have been made into all the breaches of rules during the Brexit campaign, but nobody has been prosecuted yet.


>How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are?

This reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to break down the political influence of special interest groups as California’s governor. Everybody was wholeheartedly behind this effort, until they realized the special interests “ruining California politics” were the police, fire, and teacher’s unions.


> How would that not affect organizations like the EFF or ACLU or whatever the EU equivalents are?

This seems like comparing apples to oranges. It's one thing for the EFF or ACLU to be very public about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and is in the public interest. It's another for XYZ lobbyists to be very private about pushing this or that piece of legislation that they wrote for all practical intents and caters to very private interests, with incidentally interested large donators reaching out to MPs about the legislation in question.

(Personally speaking, I'd love it if politicians were required, under penalty of fines and prison, to disclose lobbying efforts they were exposed to.)


Lobbying just means trying to influence someone’s opinion. Corporate lobbiests are lobbying corrupt officials. Lobbying isn’t the problem; corruption is


That definition of lobbying might have worked a few centuries ago. But nowadays it means trying to influence someone's opinion and throwing pre-written policies (and oftentimes money) at them.

Also, the definition of corruption you seem to have is not accurate IMO. Corruption is what Spiro Agnew did: trade explicit influence in exchange for some dosh in an envelope. That's not what politicians usually do today in western democracies -- which is to say, pay very close attention to what their major donors are worried about. There's a case to be made about how the two are equivalent in the end, but the fact of the matter is that in the first case the funds arrive in an envelope for the politician to pocket (minus some bagman commission) whereas in the second case the donations are (supposed to be) disclosed and (theoretically) benefit the politician's campaign.


It's not just campaign contributions though. When people step out of government they're often stepping into very cushy and lucrative jobs provided by people they helped while in government. You don't get to make that transition if your primary motive is looking out for the average citizen. It never even has to be agreed to explicitly, it's just understood by all parties how the system works. Very hard to prove corruption in that case, as it's institutional rather than individual.


Speaking personally, I'd rate that as a career choice/part of the job thing. It's like, if you've little to no interest in working for this or that large business, you've no reason to pull any punches against them - but it's a career choice at the end of the day.

Also, keep in mind that when a congressman leaves office, they usually have relationships with people that can move the needle in government. As such they can do valuable things for whoever is willing to hire them -- regardless of the positions they held while in office.


It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud ? They can try as many times as they want but they only have to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100% of the time. This fundamental imbalance is worrying.


>It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud?

It has to be in a democracy. Everyone is free to keep arguing for what they think are good ideas, and those who think they're not need to also keep at it. The struggle never ends, that's the civic duty of the people. Having said that, I think you might be missing one important strategy in this:

>They can try as many times as they want but they only have to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100% of the time. This fundamental imbalance is worrying.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be implicitly assuming that opposition consists solely of attempting to maintain the status quo. In that scenario you're right that it's more difficult to keep the balance from shifting away from neutral over time. However, instead opposition can fight to actually actively move things farther in their preferred direction, and then even if they lose a certain amount of the time that still won't be disastrous. It's not necessary to win every battle if they're not purely defensive, just some of the time. I don't just oppose further efforts to maximalize IP, I want much (though not all) of the current bits reversed and brought back into more historical balance. I support efforts to reduce the terms back down towards 15-30 years (or alternatively to introduce dynamic pricing/terms), to completely eliminate math and business method patents, better fund examiners, etc. That's where the battle has to continue.

Remember, you can flip your logic around there: we only need to get any given bit of overlong or incorrectly granted IP put back into the public domain once. Maximalists "have to succeed" at preventing it 100% of the time yes?


In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote.

If instead we have a system where everyone has a voice, but in practice only the groups with the resources to invest millions of euros in lobbying can get their positions heard by the EU and made into law, then it is not a democracy. And those groups are not generally in favor of the common citizen.

The balance is well tilted towards those who have the most money. The voice of one citizen weighs much less than the voice of a big corporation which can hire former EU bureaucrats as well-paid lobbyists. Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ?


>>In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote.

That would be a democratically elected representative republic, not a democracy.

The EU is not a democracy any more than the US is a democracy, there are democratic elements but it is not a democracy. This is the fundamental lie people tell themselves, that we (either the EU or the US) live in a democracy. We dont.

> Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ?

here in the US we have many such organizations, they are often demonized as well for being "special interest" and are point to as example of problem with "money in politics"


There is a fundamental asymmetry where it's much harder to repeal a law that harms a bunch of people a little bit to benefit a few. The few can afford to invest resources in defense and have a much bigger stake than the many, who individually have no real reason to care.

Public outrage works like a line in the sand, where the many get upset far out of proportion to what their stake is, to prevent death by a thousand cuts. But once you cross it, the defense crumbles. There's no model where seesawing back and forth between less and more copyright works: the many just can't organize as well as the few. That's why lobbyists only have to win once.


Of course they'll try again. Next time, they'll probably claim copyright violations cause economic down turns and bankrupt firms

Same way the three lettered guys capitalized on terrorism and child porn to disregard everyone's privacy.


> At least there seems to be no internet disaster as of now?

Are you saying there’s no disaster in general?

Haven’t EU Net Neutrality laws taken a huge hit recently? In Portugal, every major telecom now has zero-rating plans. It’s so prevalent, it’s the example image given on the Wikipedia page![1] Portugal is also one of the leaders in site blocking.[2] It requires no judicial order, which as expected leads to legitimate sites being blocked as well.

So I wouldn’t agree there haven’t been any disasters, just that they haven’t been felt hard enough. Nobody cares about small Portugal, and citizens will take any bad rules (no net neutrality) if they get their “fix” in return (use facebook without worrying about going over the data plan, which by the way is inferior to other EU countries).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

[2]: https://torrentfreak.com/portugal-blocks-330-pirate-sites-in...


We all know what will happen next, they will make a new proposal under a friendler title with better deceptive phrases with extra goodies thrown in to gain just enough of an edge to make it pass with the ambiguous text that they want to have passed.


Or rather settle for less evil laws, which could well be what they had in mind from start.

In the great old game of public opinion manipulation, one thing is making clear you aim at 10 and go straight in that direction from the beginning, and a very different thing is pretending you aim at 100, then faking acceptance of criticism and adjustments to the objectives until you get to that 10. In the first case you'll be remembered as the usual bastard in power, in the second you will get new mandates, love letters, books and street names for being someone who listens to common people.


> Eventually I hope EU completely bans organised lobbying, nothing good ever comes from pandering to special interests.

Google have been lobbying hard against this for months


Sure, but copyright vampires have been setting this up for years.


Pandering to corporate special interests, especially when citizen and labor special interests don't have a seat at the table.

One of those represents a fat narrower slice of humanity than the other two, and thus is much more likely to produce negative outcomes for a majority of people if paid too much attention


Or maybe an example of the system coming way too close to disaster and that a 'working system' would not have introduced such byzantine legislation in the first place?

And that a 'working' system would involve the implementation of some fairly common sense things?


> One just has to be vigilant in any new proposals that is made on this subject. And scream loudly if the lobbyists go at it again.

They're being paid to do this full time; they're not going to "go at it again," they're going to continue going at it every day, from 9 to 5. And then they're going to win once.

The amount of treasure to be gained by being successful can pay two lawyers for 100,000 years. There's no reason to stop even if they only see a small chance of success.

That's why the system doesn't work.


It didn't seem to with the cookies


Yup.

Then they rename it and/or break it up, and push it anyway.

See EU constitutions, repeated referendums, and finally "treaty of Lisbon".


There was one attempt at passing a constitution for the EU (the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"), which had to be ratified by all member states to take effect. Most states did in fact ratify it, but a single referendum held in France, and one in the Netherlands, rejected the idea of giving the EU a constitution.

Later, most of the reforms that were part of the TCE were repackaged into a more modestly-scoped treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, as you say. This time, though, all the "constitutional" language was removed, to make it clear that the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, as is still the case today.

To give some examples of what was removed, the Lisbon Treaty does not give any official status to the EU flag or anthem, nor does it have an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation.

One might say that the EU was guilty of hubris, or even a cynical negotiating tactic of asking for more than they expected before settling for what they were prepared to accept, but the EU did at least reduce their demands after they failed to receive unanimous approval.

I think that a lot of the fears about the Treaty of Lisbon have been proven wrong since then, and of course the irony is that it was the Treaty of Lisbon that first formally introduced a process for a state to leave the union, which the UK is now in the process of exercising. Whether that process is being managed well or not by the UK government is still a matter for local debate, though, it seems.


> an article that enforces the supremacy of EU law over national legislation.

For those unfamiliar with EU law, the Treaty of Lisbon didn't /need/ to include this particular article, so I don't know why they chose to originally (as the parent commenter says, it has since been removed).

The reason the article was superfluous is that EU law is always supreme to national law. This is a core legal concept developed by the European Court of Justice.

I agree that fears over the Treaty of Lisbon were overblown, and grateful that it established an exit mechanism for Member States wanting to leave. That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me.


> That said, the whole "let's run another referendum until we get what we want" approach doesn't endear the EU Council of Ministers or the Commission to me.

If someone offers you a cup of tea, and you decline, do you get offended if they then offer you cup of coffee instead?

Even if the question being asked were exactly the same, it would only be like a piece of software asking "Are you sure?" before you delete something, or providing a cancel button after the process has started.

I concede, though, that you're absolutely right about the supremacy of EU law being a principle clearly recognised by the ECJ. The difference is, by not putting this principle as an article to the treaty, it remains slightly less binding on signatories (under international law), since it relies on the evolving precedent of the court, rather than being agreed up front.

Now let me explain the logic of this supremacy principle.

If a sovereign nation agrees to be part of an organisation which creates laws that apply to its members, then those new laws apply just as a new law passed by a national government would apply. This follows the basic legal principle of "lex posterior derogat priori", but moreover there is the principle of statutory interpretation which means that a national parliament can't "accidentally" pass a law which contradicts existing EU law.

A member state, remaining sovereign, may choose to deliberately pass a law, knowing it will put them in breach of EU law, but that would also put them in breach of international law, which courts generally assume governments aim to avoid. In any case, it would be churlish for a member state to deliberately break the commitments it made as part of joining the union when there exists a mechanism by which it can leave and disapply all EU law.


That's a valid point, regarding the analogy. I respect their decision to offer modifications, I just don't agree with it myself because I don't think the modifications were anything substantial.

To expand upon this further: in the House of Commons, the Government cannot keep coming back and asking the same question. They may only ask the House to vote on an issue once. If they come back with something "substantially similar", then the rules dictate it is treated as though it were the same and cannot be asked again. I like this approach. It prevents people from giving in and being "bullied" into accepting something they clearly didn't want the first time.

In respect of the approach to the referendum re-runs, I viewed it as using the "Ask for 100%, and then settle for 90%" approach. Voters aren't stupid — they rejected the original constitution for a reason... and I suppose I'm tired of the perception (rightly or wrongly!) that the Commission and Council know better than their citizens. Whether they intended it or not (and I'm sure they didn't), that's the sense I get from them now – that they know better and we ought to just accept whatever they suggest. :-(

It's a shame, because I like the founding principles of the Union.


> EU law is always supreme to national law

Are you sure about this?


Yes, but I'm happy to be corrected if you know otherwise? I'm not an EU lawyer, but my understanding is that EU law has supremacy over national law that would otherwise conflict. For example, the Factortame case required the UK Supreme Court (known then as the House of Lords) to set aside an Act of Parliament to comply with EU law at the time.


Does it?

COICA -> PIPA -> SOPA -> CISPA -> CISA tells another tale.

Sure it's the USA, but the problem is not unique to the USA. It's a part of all major political systems today. If a government is determined to get a law passed, often at the behest of special interests, they'll just keep reintroducing it and slightly changing it until they win a war of attrition. Like somebody else mentioned they have to win once, you have to win every single time.

Perhaps a balancing of powers would be public referendums enabling laws to rolled back. x signatures triggers a referendum and if a supermajority (70% perhaps?) votes in favor of a rollback, a law is undone with an e.g. decade long prohibition on the reintroduction of any materially similar law. Would be quite a remarkably democratic system that could enable the citizens of a nation to remove unjust, inappropriate, or simply obsolete laws. And just to ensure that citizens and their representatives are on equal footing, so long as the signatures are repeatedly reached - these referendums could be called each and every year.


2019 was the first year we've had copyrights expire in a very long time. Everybody assumed that Disney et al would push through another extension, but they didn't even try because they knew the opposition would be too loud.


Sure it's the USA, but the problem is not unique to the USA.

I’m listening, but it would help if you could make a list that isn’t exclusively American. It really does imply that yeah, it’s very much a problem with the form of crony capitalism found in the US.


> I’m listening, but it would help if you could make a list that isn’t exclusively American.

Not the parent commenter, but here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18948465


That’s certainly a start, but the obvious counterpoint is GDPR, which was EU-wide rather than the activity of one minor constituent nation. All told it does feel like the U.S. goes well beyond most other Western nations in terms of locally and globally imposing their IP framework through laws and treties.


Julia Reda (Pirate Party MEP) did a great job protecting our freedoms. I hope she gets reelected.


This is what I hate about the European Union. Since I am from another (member) country, I can't vote for her. Makes zero sense, her voice represents me more (as in actual votes she can lobby - due to her country being bigger and thus her party obtaining more mandates for the same result) than any party from my country does.


Hah, I think you're getting downvotes because people think by "other country" you mean US and so on, and assume you expect Americans to be able to vote on EU politicians :)

Being from Poland, my first thought was "well, of course someone from outside EU cannot vote", and then realised you mean "from another EU country".


You're right, but well, it's not a federation (yet)... ;-)


Even if it was, that doesn't guarantee it. In the US, you also can't vote for a candidate running in another state.

It's stupid, but not every democratic system uses proportional representation.


Most EU countries (if not all?) have their own Pirate Party.

I'm hopeful - should they reach the required number of votes - that they will find someone just as qualified to send to the EU parliament.


I love Julia Reda. I hope there are more pirate party members like her elected.


It seems to me that the EU has been surprisingly good in terms of internet literacy and laws (though this is probably not the end of the Article 11 or 13).

In view of recent leaks, I have filed a number of request for account deletion, given to me by GDPR, and all of them have been completed. This is pretty amazing in my mind.


I'm the creator of https://opt-out.eu and I can confirm that you are correct. It works, in the vast majority of cases.


Hi, that link redirects me to https://es.opt-out.eu/ which then proceeds to fail loading due to a "failed secure connection" (literal translation from the message that appears in Firefox for Android)


Not sure why you're getting this, I'll look into it. Thanks for letting us know.


That's awesome, it's a real problem that I have to deal with. In my case Blizzard Entertainment refused to delete my information. They wanted me to actually send a copy of my passport to them in a physical letter to "verify" me. Crazy right? The entire idea of deleting my information is so that they do not possess even more information of mine. I might use this to contact them.


You are right, some companies (particularly in the US) are doing anything they can to make the process intolerable.


That's actually quite nice. Looks like all the data brokers will receive emails from me today :)

The last company I made erase me was cdon.com after I bought something on sale there and they demanded my SSN to pay with credit cards. I see that they are missing from your site, their DPO email is: dpo@cdon.com

I also like "This service does not collect or trade any personal data."


Thanks, I've added them.


High enough penalties enforced by a global power are quite effective.


Have you ever tried having your accounts deleted before the GDPR roll-out? Because I have, and no company ever said no.


There's a big difference between "delete my account" and "delete all information you have on me". From people I've spoken to, there have been a lot of companies implementing the latter in order to be compliant.


A bit of weird one here, but thedailywtf.com. I wasn't able to find any sort of "delete my account" functionality. Not that anythings changed post-GDPR, but...

(The only reason I was reminded that I actually had an ancient account is that my password from there was apparently leaked and spammers tried to convince me that they'd gained control of something important. They couldn't connect the password to the site, obviously. It was just a leaked password database.)


Also, some companies merely "soft-deleted" user accounts. Simple flag on the user in the database


I could not delete my Discord account, for example, even talking with them several times by mail.


I am glad cooler heads were able to prevail, and I'm heartened at the long list of countries that voted NO.


Some of the comments here are a little too optimistic, although this is a victory.

The fight is not over yet. The directive needs to be written, and ideally in a way that prevents this from being brought back to the table again.


Im glad to see now support was found for 11/13, but Im afraid they'll poke their nasty heads in the near future. Now if we could only get GDPR trimmed down to half its current size and remove all the ambiguities I'd be thrilled.


Add a minimum threshold of company size, revenue, and data amount to GDPR. This would get rid of the biggest problems with it. In practice it already works that way.


And then the big players will use Hollywood accounting but for data - make a bunch of small companies with little revenue that handle the actual data and "sell" those services to the mothership.

The whole point of using revenue-based fines was to avoid such tricks, and you want to add them back in?


The fine says "$20 million or 4% global revenue, whichever is greater". That definitely penalizes small companies more.

>And then the big players will use Hollywood accounting but for data - make a bunch of small companies with little revenue that handle the actual data and "sell" those services to the mothership.

This is why there would be a threshold on data itself. Come on, a guy running a forum with 100 users from his basement shouldn't be expected to legally have as much responsibility as somebody running a website that has revenue in the millions. It just discourages start ups and hobby developers, because nobody wants to open themselves up to "denial of service attacks" where people get the DPA to audit you because they didn't like what you had to say on Twitter. Just don't run the small site and there is no risk of that.

But I guess Europe is already so weak in the web industry that it might be irrelevant. We're going to rely on American websites anyway.


As a small business owner who can see things from both sides of GDPR, I disagree - GDPR really isn't that difficult to comply with.


For GDPR and for VAT.

After the changes 2 years ago, you have to sign up for that system to track which country's citizens buy your stuff, and pay VAT on a per-country level, with no minimums.

From a perspective of SAAS / digital products it's a huge pain in the ass now. If I want to sell my app or online service now I have a lot of paperwork to fill in from the get-go.


... there is a minimum threshold on at least company size and revenue built into the GDPR.


No, there isn't. There's a minimum threshold for some extra burdens, but the vast majority of the burden has no minimum threshold (other than the fact that entirely personal activities of individuals aren't included).




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

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

Search: