News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by Hermel on Thursday January 09, 2020 @06:28AM (#22000295)
Apparently, compliance with GDPR is not worth the hassle for websites that target a non-European audience.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by nottorp on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:11AM (#22000866)
TBH it's Chicago Tribune. I bet 99.95% of the articles there aren't interesting for someone in the EU. A good part of them aren't probably interesting even for an USer living outside the Chicago area.

I'd certainly never consider visiting normal US news sites unless - like in this case - they were linked to by HN or some other aggregator I do frequent.

Thus, it really makes no sense for them to comply with the GDPR.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by rkangel on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:37AM (#22001021)
I understand the logic, and can't say I'd take a different decision in their case. As a UK fan of another NFC North team, not being able to read the Chicago Tribune (without workarounds) is moderately annoying.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:23AM (#22000953)
By the same logic, they aren't really required to comply with GDPR, so they could just ignore it.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by nottorp on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:25AM (#22000959)
Are you sure they're not part of some media conglomerate that is also doing bussiness in the EU?
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by pingyong on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:32AM (#22000641)
What I'm wondering about is: If you're not targeting an EU-audience, and you therefore might not even have servers in the EU, and certainly don't have EU-based revenue streams - why do you even care? Can an EU court even do anything in this situation?
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by lloeki on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:40AM (#22000670)
IIUC, you can be a US expat living in the EU and the GDPR still applies.

Even then a non-EU company may not explicitly target a EU audience but EU moral or physical person may still find interest for whatever personal reason and still be protected by GDPR.

As for jurisdiction, I suppose such conflicts are resolved using international law, but if a company is reachable from the EU by individuals protected by EU laws I’m pretty sure there is applicable jurisdiction (not saying it’s an easy thing)

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by alexis_fr on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:13AM (#22000880)
Sometimes it’s a matter of making a point. I mean, who likes the cookie law (and bear in mind that US people don’t even see it remotely as frequently as europeans). Some people just want to send the message that EU is going too far.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:34AM (#22001005)
From GDPR Article 3:

> 2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: > (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or > (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of some old politician: It's like shooting someone over the country border. It fails to address the fact that unlike in physical space, on the internet it's not that obvious to see where someone is connecting from (in fact, it's impossible to really say with complete accuracy)

But in my opinion, it's not the wrong choice to assume that, if you're operating on a scale where you can spy on your users and sell their data, you'd be capable of figuring out whether they're in the EU. And, honestly, it's not hard. There's third party software that you can just embed in your website and it automatically generates the cookie warning and even blocks cookies until you've accepted it.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by tjoff on Thursday January 09, 2020 @06:49AM (#22000403)
Yeah, the burden of not exploiting their users really is a huge undertaking.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by Hermel on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:00AM (#22000465)
It’s certainly much cheaper to simply block European users than to pay a lawyer to tell you what you need to change and then pay a programmer to implement these changes.

Blocking the few European users is probably the right decision from an economic perspective.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by nannal on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:23AM (#22000582)
Then I'm going to vote with my European wallet and commit not to visit sites that block me.

Let's see just how much they like that.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by pingyong on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:33AM (#22000646)
They literally intentionally blocked you... that's kinda what they expect to happen lol.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:35AM (#22001010)
Wooooosh...

(That was the sound of the joke going over your head)

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by deaps on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:32AM (#22000637)
That'll show 'em
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by unknown_library on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:03AM (#22000484)
GDPR adds a lot of regulatory red tape to things that were previously simple. It is not only for nefarious reasons that you might want to avoid GDPR.

Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs. Want to use a third-party service? Now you need to make sure that you are using their GDPR-compliant plan, and that you are using their Amsterdam endpoints. Maybe you need to renegotiate your contract with them.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by asutekku on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:07AM (#22000511)
I mean you shouldn’t store any personal information in the logs to begin with.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by marcinzm on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:22AM (#22000578)
Most places would log the IP (for spam prevention, security tracking, etc) which is personal information under GDPR.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by MattConfluence on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:59AM (#22000798)
Yes, but if you are logging the IP for spam prevention, security tracking, etc, then you are in the clear per Article 6, section 1, point f [1]. However, you can't also use the IP for fingerprinting, ad targeting, etc, without acquiring informed consent, per section 1, point a.

You can put the IP in your security logs because that is necessary to secure the service. Just have a routine to scrub the logs once they are too old to be useful anymore.

You can't put the IP in your shadow profile database and sell it to shady marketing companies, unless the user has explicitly agreed to that.

The question isn't only whether something is personal information or not, it is also a question of what you intend to do with the data.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by vonmoltke on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:40AM (#22001047)
Article 6 establishes lawful purposes for data processing that do not require consent from the data subject. All other provisions of the GDPR (including, but not limited to, the maximum time you are allowed to hold the data) apply, since it is still Personal Data. The only way to avoid having to deal with GDPR entirely is to collect absolutely no Personal Data, which is almost impossible unless your web server has no logs.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:42AM (#22001060)
> which is personal information under GDPR

Not exactly; it's up to the judges to decide whether IP addresses count as personal information as defined by the GDPR (in my opinion they're not, but I can see why one would think differently), so the flaw isn't as much inherent to the GDPR as to the fact that people just don't understand the internet.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by vonmoltke on Thursday January 09, 2020 @09:27AM (#22001421)
Recital 30 specifically calls out IP addresses: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/

While the wording of the Recital leaves some ambiguity as to whether an IP is automatically Personal Data under the GDPR, its specific call-out would make arguing that it is not difficult. This would particularly be the interpretation of American lawyers, who tend to assume that no connection is too tenuous to be held against their client by a shrewd prosecutor or regulator and will thus advise their client to treat all IPs in all situations as Personal Data.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by tjoff on Thursday January 09, 2020 @09:39AM (#22001510)
It depends on the context. An ISP can trivially map an IP to a person.

So can Amazon/whoever if they saved the IP alongside other customer information.

But a naked ip->person lookup would require a warrant.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by DarkWiiPlayer on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:39AM (#22001043)
> Want to store logs? Now you need to make sure you're scrubbing any type of personal information from the logs.

What?! I'm not allowed to store my users name, address and credit card number in my unencrypted syslogs anymore? HOW DARE THEY, THOSE DAMN BEUROCRATS!

Seriously though, while there are problems (like IP address being considered personal information, which they really aren't), the general idea is very positive. You shouldn't be able to store just any information of a person that only gave you this data for a specific purpose. Servers do get hacked, employees do abuse their access to systems and old hardware doesn't always get disposed of properly.

When I'm done using a service, I want my data gone from their servers ASAP, no buts.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by bakuninsbart on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:23AM (#22000585)
Basically you are just describing the bare minimum of good practice + respecting your users privacy.
Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by cosmodisk on Thursday January 09, 2020 @07:42AM (#22000683)
https://temp-mail.org/privacy-policy

Have a look at the list of companies and other websites this service uses/shares data with.

No wonder some websites rather block users all together instead of showing that they are selling data left and right.

Re:Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data by Balanceinfinity on Thursday January 09, 2020 @08:39AM (#22001041)
on the lighter side, I do a lot of cooking and I always laugh when I visit a baking website and I get a popup that warns me about the cookie policy. Because of the context, my brain first goes to "I wonder what the recipe is for those cookies."