If you have a shopping cart, you must collect billing and shipping information. But you don't need to use it for any other purpose.
That's pretty ambiguous. For example, I'm pretty sure everything Google does that can be considered against privacy can and is tied to the service they provide as features. The fact they keep a history of everywhere you went to can be used by users to recall the locations they've been too. That Google keeps one's contacts can be used in case you lose your phone and get a new one. That Google uploads your voice to their servers is to improve their speech recognition. All privacy violations can be made "essential" by tying it to a feature.
Edit: And they can always offer more. With clear explanation of what information they'll need to retain. And users can either accept, or decline.
They also remember your searches to provide personalized results, and many people do like that.
> Anything else is clearly extraneous.
Isn't the point of a business to provide the best product or service they can (for the price they ask)? What's the point of a business that does the bare minimum? How are they supposed to compete?
In any case, the point is that it's not as clear cut to know what violates privacy and what doesn't. To tie it back to your original comment:
> The gist of these laws are all the same. Just respect ALL users' data from the start, and you shouldn't have any difficulty with compliance.
They aren't necessarily going to be the same. What is to respect all users' data? There's no concrete consensus on what violating privacy consists of. Is saving searches for personalized results consistent across personal devices violating privacy? Some will say yes, others will say no.
Also, if you err on the side of caution and avoid providing features, you're going to lose edge. It seems to me that it's very important to a business's survival to know where the borderline is.
That's why I would agree with rdlecler1 that
> a small startup needs to ensure they comply with hundreds of regulatory jurisdictions
if they want to have a chance for survival and peace of mind that they aren't even technically guilty of anything in any one jurisdiction even if in their own eyes they did everything to respect their users' data.
The internet probably wouldn't have gotten as big if it weren't for the fact that it's largely lawless. If every geographical region makes their own regulations, only big world corporations will be able to comply.
Does this outcome make sense to you?
(Disclaimer, I have worked in adtech a little bit, but I have worked a lot more with A/B testing.)
It's not so straight forward as you make it seem.
PII that you don't need can become like radioactive waste. If it gets subpoenaed, and it comes out that you retained and produced it, your reputation may be hosed. But if there's nothing to produce, no problem.
That's actually not quite correct. If you're required by law to retain that PII, you'll be hosed if you can't produce it. But then, maybe you should be doing business in a different jurisdiction.
I'm thinking of Private Internet Access. To my knowledge, logs have been subpoenaed in two US criminal cases. And they just said that they didn't retain logs. But then, VPN services aren't required to retain logs in the US.
It sure does to me. So much so that if it happened to me, I'd be sure to never buy from that site again.
I was on a web site with several items in the shopping cart. I went to the bathroom on my way into another room of the house to get my phone to make a payment on my credit card so I could make the purchase. When I got to my phone I already had one of those abandoned cart remarketing e-mails from the company.
I went back to my computer and closed the browser tab. No sale, creeps.
It's not for the operator of a website to decide what is an invasion of _my_ privacy. It's for the consumer to decide. And that's precisely why we can't rely on website administrators, or the "recipients" of data to determine whether something is private.
I'm one of those website administrators who wholeheartedly welcomes something like GDPR here, even though it would make my job harder. But hey, that's fine. Putting privacy back in the hands of consumers is the right thing to do.
Anyway, the only companies that will end up being able to collect data at all are there very biggest ones. Everyone else will have to just fly under the radar or use some kind of SAAS solution to comply with the patchwork of regulation. Not sure that’s really the desired outcome
Yep. And there's nothing wrong with that.
That they may suffer a large expense to correct years of misbehavior doesn't make me sympathetic to them.
Bummer dude. As an engineer type, I say, bring it on. Hard for me to have much sympathy ZuckerBrin can't afford another island or whatever because they made unethical decisions in the past. And if companies blow up because of it: good, that's the idea. There needs to be consequences.
Boohoo and cry me a river. Good riddance. Other companies who take care of customer data from the start will take over.
> It's government dictating the technical architecture.
No, the government doesn’t dictate technical architecture. The government dictates: be careful with personal data.
Our idea is that complying w/ data security & privacy laws should be a devops shift + costs to keep up w/ them shouldn't stop us, as developers, from keeping us just as productive in our application development lifecycle.
We're still trying to figure out the right pricing structure for smaller companies, so if you have any insight there, I'm very interested to hear it.
This harkens back to the GDPR hysteria. And that was a storm in a teacup: most companies that took compliance seriously were able to get to a good place with a medium amount of engineering work, and didn't suffer financially overmuch. A few companies did go out of business or suffer significantly--and most of those were sketchy, data-abusive entities. In other words, it worked.
Take the data deletion requirement. I know of many instances where users have permanently lost absolutely critical data because of that provision (already found in other privacy laws). When a user (accidentally) indicates they want you to delete their content, the provider has to permanently delete it within a reasonable timeframe, including purge from all backups.
Most users don't give a flying f'ck about all this privacy BS, but they care very much about what happened to their Master's thesis. They want a company who will be able to rescue them from their own mistakes. They want dependability. But they get "privacy" instead, and their accidentally wishes that you purge all their stuff gets obeyed.
Maybe you call that progress. But it really sucks when you purchase vague hypothetical benefit at the cost of real-world misery.
I admit it was vague phrasing. All I mean by respect peoples' data is to recognize that people should own their own data. You should get explicit permission before collecting it, using it, selling it, etc. At any time it should be just as easy to remove the data as it was for you to collect it.
As for any data deletion, I think it makes sense to have a strong warning any time a company has files that the user themselves have uploaded. Perhaps even listing filenames and folders to remind users what's there.
Do they really believe that, though? I always thought they were just thinking it was just legal cover to allow them to do whatever they want with the data. Respect doesn't enter into it.
That said, almost all EULAs and privacy statements I've ever read have not been forthcoming about the use of data. They usually state, in broad terms, that they'll share unspecified user data with mysterious "partners" for nonspecific reasons.
But being privacy respecting and properly complying with GDPR with audit log systems, etc are 2 different things that require hiring 1 or 2 extra engineers or causing them to pause the companies roadmap as 1 or more people implement government bureaucracy infrastructure for half a year.
If they say it's easy and cheap, then they haven't actually tried to do it properly and are exposing themselves to multi-million dollar penalties.
[0] https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2017/12/gdpr-stopped-selli...