Page 1 of 2

1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:38 pm UTC
by cheweytoo
Image

title: "By clicking anywhere, scrolling, or closing this notification, you
agree to be legally bound by the witch Sycorax within a cloven pine."

That would be an interesting version of that play…

And heh: Today has been quite funny in general, and in Mailboxes in particular.
I've sent several messages with variations of "I have not updated my privacy policy"
to friends of mine in the last couple of hours. Chuckling ensued.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:55 pm UTC
by sardia
What is xkcds privacy policy?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:23 pm UTC
by rhomboidal
My mind spent half an hour just trying to guess what "GDPR" stood for. And failed.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:27 pm UTC
by speising
rhomboidal wrote:My mind spent half an hour just trying to guess what "GDPR" stood for. And failed.

German Democratic Peoples Republic, of course.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:30 pm UTC
by cheweytoo
rhomboidal wrote:My mind spent half an hour just trying to guess what "GDPR" stood for.


Google does probably remember.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:53 pm UTC
by Mikeski
Morgan Freeman, Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Eric Schneiderman have updated their privates' policies.

Would you like to see the updates (y/n)?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:54 pm UTC
by qvxb
GDPR was the title of the 1976 disco hit by The Village Persons, a group of three men and a woman that portrayed upper middle class professionals. They were a liability lawyer, a banker and money launderer, a real estate developer that built on toxic waste sites, and a female gynecologist and part-time professional drag racer (Gyno Donna).

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:16 pm UTC
by freezeblade
Grand Daddy Purple (live) Resin.

Available at a (now legal!) cannabis dispensary near you (if you're in California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, etc.), try some today!

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:40 pm UTC
by somitomi
While reading this I struggled with the urge to just scroll to the bottom and click agree.

I sometimes wonder how many times I've sold my sould already and whether that makes me a con artist.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:46 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
I occasionally confirm that I will I accept cookies, but am always disappointed that I never get any with chocolate chips.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 10:36 pm UTC
by heuristically_alone
I know Discord updated their policy because of the European Union thing. Is there anyone else that has?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 10:37 pm UTC
by dtilque
Hey, where's those sex scenes we were promised?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 11:46 pm UTC
by RogueCynic
somitomi wrote:While reading this I struggled with the urge to just scroll to the bottom and click agree.

I sometimes wonder how many times I've sold my sould already and whether that makes me a con artist.


I have a sig on another website that legally binds the reader to render their soul to me. One person has already acknowledged the transfer.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 12:52 am UTC
by rmsgrey
somitomi wrote:While reading this I struggled with the urge to just scroll to the bottom and click agree.

I sometimes wonder how many times I've sold my sould already and whether that makes me a con artist.


Is that "con" short for Constantine?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 2:57 am UTC
by pogrmman
heuristically_alone wrote:I know Discord updated their policy because of the European Union thing. Is there anyone else that has?

You haven’t been getting multiple emails every day for the past ~2 weeks saying “We’ve updated our privacy policy.”?
You must be lucky. not use many sites.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 4:47 am UTC
by hetas
I don't use many sites but still got many privacy update messages. I'm European, though. Work for translators and lawyers. And coders.

As an interesting side effects some American sites are now blocked themselves from Europe because they don't have their gdpr stuff ready. At the time of writing instapaper.com is unavailable. Some more sites listed here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44248448

Instapaper wrote:Instapaper is temporarily unavailable for users in Europe

Instapaper is temporarily unavailable for residents in Europe as we continue to make changes in light of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect May 25, 2018. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we intend to restore access as soon as possible.

If you have any questions about your account, would like us to generate an export of your saves, or want to check in on our progress, please let us know at support@help.instapaper.com. We look forward to having the same Instapaper service you know and love accessible in Europe in the very near future. Thanks for your patience.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 5:19 am UTC
by chenille
rhomboidal wrote:My mind spent half an hour just trying to guess what "GDPR" stood for. And failed.

Just in case you are actually interested, it's General Data Protection Regulation, as passed by the EU.

dtilque wrote:Hey, where's those sex scenes we were promised?

Just in case you are actually interested, xkcd has at least some here, here, here, here, here, maybe here, and here.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 5:25 am UTC
by Quppa
This service may utilize 3rd party extensions in order to play the song Can u feel it from their debut album Alive.


Who is 'they'? Enquiring minds want to know.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:22 am UTC
by Grop
I took it to mean there was a group named 3rd party extensions.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:28 am UTC
by Quppa
Grop wrote:I took it to mean there was a group named 3rd party extensions.


Makes sense, now that I read it again :)

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 7:30 am UTC
by dtilque
Grop wrote:I took it to mean there was a group named 3rd party extensions.


A google search says the group is named 3rd Party. No extensions.

[Note there seem to be an awful lot of different songs named "Can U feel It"]

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:34 am UTC
by da Doctah
dtilque wrote:
Grop wrote:I took it to mean there was a group named 3rd party extensions.


A google search says the group is named 3rd Party. No extensions.

[Note there seem to be an awful lot of different songs named "Can U feel It"]


Surely not as many as there are named "Hold On"? (The J-card notes on a cassette I used to own listed about a dozen different ones to go with their information on the one by Ian Gomm.)

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:58 am UTC
by YukoValis
I've noticed that a whole bunch of sites have all sent me email or messages about their policy update, and their reasons for gathering my information. Did something huge happen while I was away?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 1:52 pm UTC
by speising
YukoValis wrote:I've noticed that a whole bunch of sites have all sent me email or messages about their policy update, and their reasons for gathering my information. Did something huge happen while I was away?

You mean "away" like in "in outer space"?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 1:57 pm UTC
by jgh
hetas wrote:As an interesting side effects some American sites are now blocked themselves from Europe because they don't have their gdpr stuff ready. At the time of writing instapaper.com is unavailable. Some more sites listed here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44248448

Fog in the Atlantic, America cut off...

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 2:56 pm UTC
by NotAllThere
sardia wrote:What is xkcds privacy policy?


Apparently, it's cool. Which I'm happy about.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 3:40 pm UTC
by ucim
sardia wrote:What is xkcds privacy policy?
https://www.xkcd.com/792/

Jose

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 10:24 pm UTC
by YukoValis
speising wrote:
YukoValis wrote:I've noticed that a whole bunch of sites have all sent me email or messages about their policy update, and their reasons for gathering my information. Did something huge happen while I was away?

You mean "away" like in "in outer space"?

Vacation. Came back to a ton of emails.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:52 pm UTC
by Mjb
YukoValis wrote:
speising wrote:
YukoValis wrote:I've noticed that a whole bunch of sites have all sent me email or messages about their policy update, and their reasons for gathering my information. Did something huge happen while I was away?

You mean "away" like in "in outer space"?

Vacation. Came back to a ton of emails.

The EU did for privacy policies what California did for known carcinogens: forced a lot of companies outside its borders to talk about them, and some to even improve practices. Subject to various fine print, your odds of, say, getting your information exported/removed from your account on some site are better than a month ago.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 12:38 am UTC
by YukoValis
I see that. I feel that this is a good thing. Companies need to be more transparent with what data they use.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 6:26 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
The launch of this seems like an absolute clusterfuck, with major services like Facebook and Google seemingly unable to comply fast enough (or perhaps, if I'm understanding the law, ever) and either shutting down or fighting lawsuits. That is not the mark of a well-planned policy. And I tend not to trust EU internet laws after they forced websites to constantly inform people that they use cookies. I haven't checked the details of this law, but if it is indeed like California and carcinogens, then it's probably even worse than I expected.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:09 am UTC
by Soupspoon
I've heard differently. The likes of Google and Facebook have enough techno-legal nouse to do enough to (appear to, give or take the next Big Thing That Causes Problems) comply. Certainly to fudge it, and know how to do it so that we need to suck up their latest iteration of pop-over message.

Meanwhile, there's loads of little-guys having to gear up their small teams (or even one-man-bands) to doing the same as thousands of Google Engineers, in parallel and reinventing their own wheels their own way, much more likely that they'll make a mistake, and chances being good that at least one of them will do something bad enough (either breaking the law or breaking the user experience) to cause a problem with their future business survival.

I note quite a few apps are being updated for GDPR, according to release notes. Maybe they're using components that have been centrally updated² and have been pushed to the change after the library-provider worked out they need to comply.


I was quite the expert with the (UK's) 1984 Data Protection Act, relative to everyone else I knew at the time. By the time of the EU Data Protection Directive of 95ish I was out of that game again and the '98 version of the DPA largely passed me by as far as in-depth knowledge needed¹ and I wouldn't claim to know enough about the aborted 2017 DPA or the GDPR except as far as using common sense and hoping for the best, and I've no current data-collection practice active that would test that over-confidence.


¹ I never had personal ambitions to know everything about everybody, although history might have led elsewhere as my first ever web-page was a pre-Yahoo Yahoo-type-thing, so it could have been a slippery slope from indexing the nascent Web to indexing the Netizens. I still have difficulty telling the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Wahlberg, so maybe it's all for the best.

² More than once I've gone in there and chosen the "I know this won't make my experience ad-free, disabling targeted ads, and that I will (now) get untargeted ads" setting, giving that a go for a while. I know one game I play now seems to keep on sending me (when I'm online) an ad for a particular block-combo-breaking game every time since I chose that route. But then it perhaps used to give me that 75% of the time beforehand, so it's hard to tell if anything's changed. I'm happy enough to use ad-supported things, and mostly ignore the ads, and the app people must still be getting some worth out of that.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:40 am UTC
by Invertin
All I know is that I spent around a full minute just going through the options on the privacy agreement to tell Tumblr not to sell my info to anyone.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 10:14 am UTC
by Soupspoon
Probably vastly more person-hours were spent doing what you just did than were spent setting it up so that you had to. (At the end of the spectrum towards which Tumblr resides, that is.)

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 1:48 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
Soupspoon wrote:I've heard differently. The likes of Google and Facebook have enough techno-legal nouse to do enough to (appear to, give or take the next Big Thing That Causes Problems) comply. Certainly to fudge it, and know how to do it so that we need to suck up their latest iteration of pop-over message.

Meanwhile, there's loads of little-guys having to gear up their small teams (or even one-man-bands) to doing the same as thousands of Google Engineers, in parallel and reinventing their own wheels their own way, much more likely that they'll make a mistake, and chances being good that at least one of them will do something bad enough (either breaking the law or breaking the user experience) to cause a problem with their future business survival.


Yeah, I'm sure this creates a barrier to entry, but it has also created multi-billion euro lawsuits immediately against large companies. It's bad for the big guys and worse for the small guys and a pain in the ass to consumers. It remains to be seen if it will do anything for protecting privacy.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 6:57 pm UTC
by Mystwalker
Eebster the Great wrote:to comply fast enough


Actually, this law has been published 2 years ago. Hence, everyone had 2 years to prepare themselves. 2 f--ing years!
It's just that its implementation date was 2 days ago. But this was set those 2 years ago, so it should have been to nobody's surprise. Should - as I also was involved in some last-minute ad-hoc changes, thanks to organisations waiting for the last week to start making up their minds and checking whether something needs to be done...

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm UTC
by Eebster the Great
Well, it's not like it's the little sites and apps that are spamming me. It's huge service after huge service. So I don't buy that the problem is just that DPOs they hired for this exact purpose just forgot what their job was and chose to do nothing until now.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:48 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
With the Y2K thing, as I recall, everyone was battling to get it done ahead of time because the risk of something going wrong at the tick of midnight rather concentrated everyone's minds, and auditing/upgrading everything you actually used yourself was a good excuse to get your accounts department to approve the shuffling of the old 166Mhz Pentiums off your desks (or, at least, off the IT Dept your company's particular 'moneyshot' department (whatever that might be - though of course IT also need to test the new machines to make sure they work well enough for the moneyshot work, and so does the high-spec machine the company execs basically play their Freecell on as a vital destressing activity).

This thing, however, had no advantages to being ready (i.e. rolled-out) ahead of time.

Conscientious Service Provider wrote:Hey, random user, did you know that we are leaking information like a sieve? And therefore we (unlike all our competitors) are right away obliging ourselves to tell you exactly how many of your old pets we know the names of, on demand, and all the rest.

And we've already stopped telling Cambridge Analytical your favourite flavour of gin, too, meaning that now our favourite flavour of gin has to be 'discount gin, from that dodgy bloke who has a lock-up down that dark alley'.

Oh, and you also need to read ten paragraphs of legalese that isn't yet even necessary, and we'll have to send you a revised set of legalese later, anyway, because lawyers always change their minds at the last minute if they know we can afford it.

Meanwhile #BiggestCompetitor# is playing it cool, 'cos they don't have to do this in advance. They'll probably even sneakily rely on you not opening their service configuration for half a week after implementation to keep using your old data under your old 'consent' because whothehellwouldknow and, even if someone does find out, they think they have deep enough pockets to suck up any fine for their 'minor oversight, corrected as soon as the user finally clicked the right button.

So, yeah. We've done all this work, putting us at a disadvantage and maybe annoying you enough to lose you. It's not even as if you're currently so drowning in these things that you can't be bothered to be particularly upset at us. But, if you stay with us, we will be fine-tuning things at the end of May 2018. And probably even at the beginning of June. And without even justification to get a fancy new set of servers, worse luck!


So instead it's like being at the centre of a massive 'circular firing squad' of companies playing Chicken with their policies and only swerving away at the very last minute.

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Mon May 28, 2018 2:15 am UTC
by Eebster the Great
And this is the intended effect of the bill? As far as I can tell, that is compliance. Again, the companies didn't "put off" anything, they took the approach they felt best for themselves. What did you expect them to do? If this is the expected result, why would you want this?

Re: 1998: "GDPR"

Posted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:44 am UTC
by Eternal Density
Who's Rohan?

Also I had no idea this was a thing until the onslaught of emails a few weeks ago. I have a tiny website which technically people can create profiles on but no one actually uses it. Maybe I should switch some or all of it off?