The irony here is that American users are so used to being endlessly surveiled without consequence that they are genuinely shocked that the rest of the world refuses to put up with this bullshit. This is completely normal to them.
The GDPR is just another step in a global fight by people all over the world to regain their data sovereignty and protect themselves from endless surveillance. The momentum at the international level is very clearly for data sovereignty. Russia and many Asian countries are following closely behind. And while everybody was freaking out about the GDPR nobody seemed to notice that China passed even stricter online privacy laws [1] earlier this month. Singapore [3] and Malaysia [4] are up to speed and even Thailand [2] will likely soon require minimum standards. (Edited to add more links.)
The end result is like so many other things: American companies will end up blocking everybody but American users who they know they can exploit without consequence. American users will celebrate their exploitation as freedom from Big Government. Everybody else will move on and just shake their heads.
Read the thread again. Nobody has a problem with data protection but the fact that the regulation is not actually clear, hence creating more work while simultaneously being rather ineffective. How is that good for the user?
Also it's hilarious to claim China has better privacy when that government tracks everyone using facial regulation with real-time threat scoring and national social rankings called a "citizen score". A late payment on a single bill gets your face and contact info on a giant billboard so go ahead and try complaining about your data over there and see how far that goes.
"Clear" regulation is a fantasy. Every established boundary of regulation people enjoy in Western civilization was once and unclear, untested boundary that laws and courts had to cope with.
If folks find ambiguity in the GDPR, do NOT get into American Fintech. Here's a great question: what are the technical requirements mandated by the US government to become a bank?
How can the regulation already be ineffective? It's literally been in effect for one day. You'll have to refine the standard anti-regulatory tropes in this case.
Get this: not everybody is consumed by paranoid fantasies concerning their government. And while your shallow understanding of China based off a few western-oriented articles here and there may validate your own biases do understand they have no real relation to reality. In reality, there are no extraordinary consequences for missing a single bill. On the other hand if you're sued in court over a debt the judge -- not unlike American judges (!) -- can use public humiliation to try to modify your behavior.
The regulation is ineffective because billions of people have already given consent to Facebook and Google because they just want to get on with their lives and aren't about to stop using their services.
>>> People have already faced various punishments for violating social protocols. The system has been used to already block nine million people with "low scores" from purchasing domestic flights. While still in the preliminary stages the system has been used to ban people and their children from certain schools, prevent low scorers from renting hotels, using credit cards, and black list individuals from being able to procure employment. The system has also been used to rate individuals for their internet habits (too much online gaming reduces ones score for example), personal shopping habits, and a variety of other personal and wholly innocuous acts that have no impact on the wider community.
>>> Authorities vowed to collect the personal information of debtors and publish it in public places such as newspapers, train stations and other high-visibility platforms. The Supreme People’s Court reported in January that by the end of 2017 it had publicly listed the names of nearly 10 million people. They had been blacklisted from various activities, with 9.36 million of them prohibited from buying plane tickets and 3.67 million from buying high-speed rail tickets.
I'd say if you put it on a indoor table, a measly cubic centimetre of sand can make a (small) pile, and a random estimate on the internet states that there are 8000 grains of sand in a cubic centimetre.
So many left-wing people are convinced that if it weren't for those meddling russians the status quo would remain. It's mind boggling. Foreign powers have attempted to sway elections before and they will do so in the future.
In a way it very much reminds me of Germanys 'stabbed in the back' conspiracy theories at the end of WWI. Any rationalisation to avoid the cold, hard truth.
I'd bet money on two terms for trump at this point. The left has learned nothing from this.
The irony here is that American users are so used to being endlessly surveiled without consequence that they are genuinely shocked that the rest of the world refuses to put up with this bullshit. This is completely normal to them.
The GDPR is just another step in a global fight by people all over the world to regain their data sovereignty and protect themselves from endless surveillance. The momentum at the international level is very clearly for data sovereignty. Russia and many Asian countries are following closely behind. And while everybody was freaking out about the GDPR nobody seemed to notice that China passed even stricter online privacy laws [1] earlier this month. Singapore [3] and Malaysia [4] are up to speed and even Thailand [2] will likely soon require minimum standards. (Edited to add more links.)
The end result is like so many other things: American companies will end up blocking everybody but American users who they know they can exploit without consequence. American users will celebrate their exploitation as freedom from Big Government. Everybody else will move on and just shake their heads.
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-china-data-privacy-standar...
[2] https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/news/1455534/new-data-l...
[3] https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/Legislation-and-Guidelines/Personal-...
[4] https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=33273