Fun fact: GDPR has not one word to say about advertising in particular. Ad targeting may still be legal in some cases! Meanwhile all networked software is illegal by default unless its operator can prove that it stays within the defined GDPR exceptions.
> Meanwhile all networked software is illegal by default unless its operator can prove that it stays within the defined GDPR exceptions.
This doesn't make sense to me. Can you please instruct me how I would go about suing the curl project? Please help me understand how this networked software is "illegal by default." I actually don't understand precisely what you mean by "networked software" so perhaps my misunderstanding lies there.
Overall I find statements like this "all networked software is illegal" to be FUD hogwash. It's just the same as when environmental regulations are going to "destroy the energy industry" and labor regulations are going to "destroy the service industry" etc.. Industry (represented here by tech entrepreneurs) is doing their typical disingenuous wringing of hands they always do when consumer/worker/environmental protections are brought forth.
Let's get rid of the GDPR, the EPA and the Paris climate accords while we're at it.
Any server you curl is processing your personal data by addressing the HTTP response to your IP address. Curl itself arguably fails "privacy by design" test in that there is no Tor, etc. enabled by default, although I admit that's a stretch. The entire HTTP protocol design of obtaining documents by interacting directly with their publishers is similarly careless from a privacy perspective.
>"all networked software is illegal"
It's not always illegal. It's illegal by default, and up to you to demonstrate that it falls within one of the defined exceptions.
>"destroy the energy industry"
I'm quite happy that only serious and well-capitalized entities can surmount the regulatory hurdles to running a smoke-billowing power plant. I'm not happy that we're doing the same things to websites.
Have you been in Usenet in a networking group around 2000. Good luck with these fake opinions.
Just because some startup incubator is great at grabbing words from the hacker culture ("ycombinator", "hacker" "news"), does not mean they get to redefine the meaning.
They are just greedy, greedy for money and words they can appropriate.
I also don't think the _solution_ to that problem is to create a new bureaucracy and complex set of rules ("you won't be targeted, trust us!") that seems to address a "problem" (if it even is so) that is a large superset of ad-driven tech. Overcharged bureaucracy goes against the hacker spirit.
By the way, a way out of this mess seems to include crypto. We know right now that most ICOs are scams, crypto has lots of technical issues, and is in general still not ready for "prime time." That being said, when it _is_ ready for prime time, it's hard to even imagine how a crypto network could even comply with any of the basic ideas of GDPR, despite the fact that privacy is not really a concern.
How would you implement a "right to be forgotten" on a blockchain ledger? It may not even matter that the EU itself would not interfere, as GDPR also apparently creates private rights of action. Any sufficiently loony EU citizen can drag foreigners to court with gigantic lawsuits.
That being the case, "the network" doesn't own these 'side ledgers.' They have owners who may well keep non-public data. Further, that the data comprising a particular digest needn't be disclosed, only that the owner of the digest vouches for the digest. For forgettable mode, said owner validates their own data, generates the digest, adds it to the blockchain, and subsequently 'forgets' the data that created the digest.
Now maybe that flies in the face of a fully public blockchain, but it allows the implementation of that which you couldn't fathom: a right to be forgotten alongside blockchain technology.
