GDPR is a good thing for citizens. But leave it to Americans to proclaim something that is good for people bad because it inconveniences corporations.

>But leave it to Americans to proclaim something that is good for people bad because it inconveniences corporations.

I just read the GP post again and I don't see anywhere he indicated his nationality. I understand this legislation is stressful and it may cause you to need something to lash out on but bashing someone's imagined country of origin isn't going to change anything and misdirected anger will probably only make you feel worse.

Furthermore, many of the posters I've seen criticizing the GDPR law have in fact claimed to be citizens of EU countries.

Addendum: I find it disheartening that I wrote this to help the parent poster recognize his misplaced anger and to state facts yet some other people also in an apparent act of misplaced anger/sadness/frustration take the time to down vote me. Hacker News you are better than this.

Disagree on whether it's a good thing, but regardless we citizens work at, own, and buy from corporations too.

One of the first fines went to an online forum critizing GDPR.

Eh, cookie laws don't take away your freedom, and GDPR is overall a good thing.

You're piling on irrelevant things for your anti-EU frame. Enjoy your hard Brexit.

> had a way to get rid of laws made using this tactic, the nations under EU's rule don't

"Under EU rule" the EU is made by its member countries, as opposed to what some people say.

Of course they do. It's an EU directive. Some countries already said they don't intent to move forward with it (Italy and Poland come to mind)

> when it comes to getting rid of EU's rules you need multiple good cycles of elections in numerous nations, then you also need to convince a good amount of bureaucrats, and then you also have to remove the local interpretation of the EU directive

And guess what, this amount of discussion, coming and going is actually helping (people see the BS) in this case.

> Of course they do. It's an EU directive. Some countries already said they don't intent to move forward with it (Italy and Poland come to mind)

You make it sound as if Directives are optional. They aren't. They must be implemented by a deadline set by the Commission, or the member state is open to legal action either domestically or in EU court.

You are correct (once the directive is approved), but there are also degrees and (limited) changes that can be put by member states.

Confused about how that would work in practice.

I took a cursory look out of interest :

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

I can see how Directive wording is either taken verbatim ('copy-out'), or brought into harmony with existing laws to avoid duplication.

Not sure how something could be implemented 50% (like a degree), or parts ignored completely.

Also, wouldn't any limited changes have to be approved at EU parliament level before being ratified as a Directive in the first place?

Nice, that's a very informative document. Minimum requirements and avoiding golden-plating seem to be base principles.

It's probably not a copy-paste nor a 'pick and choose' but something that has a bit of flexibility (and it also has to be harmonized with local law).

How do cookie laws remove user freedom?

> cookie laws, gdpr, copyright

One of your examples is not like the others.

How does GDPR remove user freedom?

It forbids letting users exchange their information for access to a service. (Because you can't disallow access if they don't agree to data collection). You can say any such deal is inherently bad and users shouldn't have that option, and you might even be correct, but it's still a restriction of freedom.

> Because you can't disallow access if they don't agree to data collection

Yes you can, if the data is necessary to provide the service. If the data is just generic spying for profit, completely unrelated to the service provided, then you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

Please remind us on democratic freedoms of Russia slowly eroded. Or on slow progress of Nazism in face of majority pro-democratic populace. Neither happened.

Germany just requested that France give up their UN security council seat so that the EU could have it

Remember when the EU was just supposed to be a trade union rather than an organization that can pass laws that effect every person in Europe?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/28/world/germany-u...

> Germany just

"just": "In the past, [Merkel] and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas have both called for individual EU countries’ seats on the UNSC to be “europeanized.”"

> requested

"proposed"

> that France give up their UN security council seat so that the EU could have it

"To lessen the pain of losing the powerful seat, France could become “the permanent EU ambassador to the United Nations,”"

> Remember when the EU was just supposed to be a trade union rather than an organization that can pass laws that effect every person in Europe?

The EU was never supposed to be just a trade union, that's a key distinguishing difference between the EU and the EEC. (Though even the EEC was in large part motivated by a long-term vision of a United States of Europe.)

Remember when the USA was just a colony and not a superpower? Things change.

"It was so much better when the 13 colonies would just pay our taxes and not complain"

The EU was never a trade union, the EEC was [1].

[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en#fro...