Surely you don't believe that, given a random sample of 20 people, 19 of them will be amoral, selfish, and have no values? Surely this doesn't align with your real life experience - what are your colleagues, friends, family, neighbours and acquaintances like? Do they meet this ratio?
I agree that businesses who unlawfully sell your data or do not implement a minimum of security measures should be punished hard.
I also agree that a flat 5000 € is problematic. Not because I believe that breaking the law shouldn't be punished. It's because you also get punished if you protect the data and respect your customers, but you don't document the thousand things you must document as a small business.
I don't know if you ever looked at GDPR, but that does not distinguish between a company with five employees and 50,000 employees.
The company with 5 employees must exactly (!!!) implement the same audit trail and processes that the 50,000 employee company has to do. Or worse, there's literally no difference between you founding a company and Facebook.
This shit gets extremely overwhelming extremely fast and that's just killing small businesses.
As someone with experience with it, I heartedly disagree. It’s not that hard to not invade user privacy. You have to go out of your way to be invasive, just respect your users and collect as little data possible. That’s truly the way to go and reduces your liability in a multitude of ways, including protecting you of data breaches (if you don’t keep the data, there’s nothing to steal).
Record of processing activities, data processing agreements, consent documentation, technical and organisational measures, data protection impact assessment, data retention and deletion concepts, legal basis documentations, etc. etc.
Yeah, but basically all of those are either standard for SMEs or no-ops.
For instance, if I run a bakery and sell baked goods online, I'm probably using Shopify who comply with this with one button.
Even if I built the baking website myself, all I need is email address and physical address to send delicious baked goods to you. I need to keep the payment records for a long time (for dispute prevention if nothing else) but that's it.
Where is the GDPR hassle in this case?
Just stop collecting data you don't need (or make sure it's for a good reason, like fraud prevention) and you'll be fine.
If said bakery creates accounts, it's a little more involved but basically you just need to implement soft delete to comply with your obligations.
I'm not sure this is a massive hit, can you help me understand what SMEs exactly are going to be hit by complex GDPR compliance?
No, a bakery using Shopify will not spare them having these documents. You show a respectable amount of ignorance only to then claim GDPR won't be a hassle in this case. It absolutely is a hassle, which you would know, had you familiarized yourself with the subject.
Even stating "just stop collecting data you don't need" shows, that you did not care to read my response before you replied to it, and how little you generally know about the topic.
Not repeating what I said, I will add this: if you do collect personal data (and you WILL if you do anything online, write invoices or just have a security camera on premises) than you will have to have these documents ready.
Most of the information relates to online marketing, which does tend to come with more GDPR compliance requirements. My wife runs a business through Shopify and the only thing we need to worry about is email addresses.
Can you help me understand what you see as the issues around GDPR compliance here?
It depends on the video. What they should do is arrange for the video to get leaked and let the Internet courts argue about it, and then based on the Internet verdict, come out and claim it's real and they fired somebody for leaking it, or it's AI generated.
Love him or hate him, releasing the video is something I can see Elon doing because assuming a human driver would have done worse, it speaks for itself. Release a web video game where the child sometimes jumps out in front of the car, and see how fast humans respond like the "land Starship" game. Assuming humans would do worse, that is. If the child was clearly visible through the car or some how else avoidable by humans, then I'd be hiding the video too.
I think you're missing something though, which I've observed from reading these comments - HN commenters aren't ordinary humans, they're super-humans with cosmic powers of awareness, visibility, reactions and judgement.
Just about absolute. Fall off bridge onto car, I guess not. Olympic sprinter dashes out from car intentionally trying to be hit? Guess not either. Clothed mostly in black on a rainy night on a freeway? Not either.
But you hit a kid in daytime? It's your fault. Period.
It’s possible a driver turns a corner (not wearing sunglasses) and suddenly the sun briefly blinds them, while a kid darts into the street.
I’ve seen kids (and ADULTS!) walk on the side of the street at night in all black or very very dark clothing. It’s extra amusing when they happen to be black (are they trying to get themselves killed?) It’s not the drivers fault if they genuinely can’t see a camouflaged person. I’ve had numerous close calls like this on rural and suburban roads and I think i’m a cautious driver. Make sure you are visible at night.
Or if a kid is riding a bicycle down a hill and flies into the middle of an intersection (dumb? brakes failed? etc). very possible to accidentally mow down the child.
HOWEVER, i do agree that 95% of the time it’s the drivers fault if they hit a kid. Poor awareness and speed are the biggest factors. It is certainly not 100% of the time the drivers fault though. That’s absurd. You really misunderstand how dumb some pedestrians (and parents) are.
But….it’s all besides the point. A child that doesn’t understand the importance of cross walks and looking both ways is too young to be walking alone, period. Yes even if they’re “right”. Being right isn’t helpful if you’re dead.
No it's not. The same principle applies to rules of right of way on the water. Technically the 32 foot sailboat has right of way over a triple-E because the triple-E uses mechanical propulsion.
You have a responsibility to be cautious in heavy equipment no matter what the signage on the road says, and that includes keeping a speed at which you can stop safely if a person suddenly steps onto the road in situations where people are around. If you are driving past a busy bar in downtown, a drunk person might step out and you have a responsibility to assume that might happen. If you have to go slower sometimes, tough.
I don't think that's a great analogy since a sailboat's right-of-way isn't unlimited and it can certainly be found at fault for a collision with a triple-E container ship - especially given maritime law uses the comparative fault system where fault is shared between parties.
For instance, a sailboat must alter course if a collision can't be avoided by the give-way vessel alone:
Rule 17(b):
> When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to
avoid collision.
So if you sail your boat into a container ship and it tries to give way, but doesn't have the ability to do so quickly enough to prevent a collision, you're violating the rules if you don't also alter course as well.
Plus, if we're going to connect this to a pedestrian, if a sailboat suddenly cut in front of a container ship with zero concern for its limited maneuverability/ability to stop, the sailboat would also violate Rule 2 by neglecting precaution required by seamen and failing to consider the limitations of the vessels involved.
And if a pedestrian jumps from a bridge to land right in front of you? or how about a passenger jumps of out the car next to you? still going to stand on your absolute?
As an aside, because it would not be germane to automotive safety…
In the Coast Guard Auxiliary “Sailing and Seamanship” class that I attended, targeting would-be sailboat skippers, we were told the USS Ranger nuclear-powered aircraft carrier had the right-of-way.
> You seem to be implying that there are no circumstances in which a vehicle can hit a pedestrian and the driver not be at fault... which is absurd.
It is absurd, but that doesn't mean that the attitude can't be useful!
In teaching my teenager to drive, I drilled into him the fact that, in every accident, regardless of who is "at fault", there is almost always something that the other party could have done to mitigate it. I gave him plenty of situations as examples...
You're going down a street that has kids on the sidewalk? You better be prepared to have one of those kids come out in front of the car while rough-housing, playing, whatever.
You had right of way? Maybe you did, but did you even look at the opposing traffic to see if it was safe to proceed or did you just look at the traffic light?
I've driven, thus far in my life, roughly 600000km (maybe more) with 2x non-trivial accidents, both ruled not my fault. In hindsight, I could have avoided both of them (I was young and not so self-aware).
I'm paranoid when driving, and my stats are much much better than Waymo's (have never injured anyone - even my 2x accidents only had me injured), even though I drive in all sorts of conditions, and on all sorts of roads (many rural, some without markings).
Most people don't drive like this though (although their accident rate is still better than Waymo's).
There is no monopoly here though. Android makes up a pretty substantial proportion of users. That users continue to use Apple devices despite this kind of greed (and that people on HN cheered when Apple defeated Epic in court) shows that users don't care, which is unfortunate.
I see people saying this a lot, but I've also seen videos demonstrating that you can easily post and search for Tiananmen Square content. I don't use Tiktok myself but it seems like this is basically untrue.
This will likely depend on the country, I presume it wouldn't work in China.
But this isn't new either, western services operating abroad will often comply with local laws, which includes country or region specific laws on acceptable content. Google pulled out of China for a good while because they didn't want to, but they eventually cracked and complied with their content laws. Of course, by then the competition was dominant already.
key word is "search," tianamen square will never be recommended in a feed. This is the illusion of "choice." Most people think they can "train" their feed, this is not true.
reply