Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2018 20:23 UTC

This article is terrible, and clearly chooses sides with advertisers and data harvesters over users - not surprising, coming from Bloomberg.

For some of America's biggest newspapers and online services, it's easier to block half a billion people from accessing your product than comply with Europe's new General Data Protection Regulation.

The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and The New York Daily News are just some telling visitors that, "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries."

With about 500 million people living in the European Union, that's a hard ban on one-and-a-half times the population of the U.S.

Blanket blocking EU internet connections - which will include any U.S. citizens visiting Europe - isn't limited to newspapers. Popular read-it-later service Instapaper says on its website that it's "temporarily unavailable for residents in Europe as we continue to make changes in light of the General Data Protection Regulation."

Whenever a site blocks EU users, you can safely assume they got caught with their hands in the user data cookie jar. Some of these sites have dozens and dozens of trackers from dozens of different advertisement companies, so the real issue here is even these sites themselves simply have no clue to whom they're shipping off your data - hence making it impossible to comply with the GDPR in the first place.

The GDPR is not only already forcing companies to give insight into the data they collect on you - it's also highlighting those that simply don't care about your privacy. It's amazing how well GDPR is working, and it's only been in effect for one day.

Permalink for comment 657496
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Reality Check
by daveak on Mon 28th May 2018 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reality Check"
Member since:

GDPR covers the physical world, it isn't a digital thing. A PI is allowed to have personal data without their approval? So is anyone else, so long as they can show they are meeting one of the other lawful basis for processing the data. There is nothing special here with regards to data protection. Under GDPR a PI would probably claim legitimate interests as the basis. This however does not mean that interest would override that of the data subject. Depending on the investigation they may claim vital interests but that is unlikely.

GDPR defines what anyone can process. There are derogations a country can put in place in their implementation of the regulation, but that is it. The closest I can understand from a UK perspective of a license is the registration with the ICO as a data controller, which with a few exceptions, anyone handling data has to do.

I didn't mention disobeying at all. The law states there are circumstances where the right to erasure may be overridden. The issue then is providing the evidence as to why you cannot remove the data. If you can then fine you are ok, if you can't then the data needs to be removed.

Reply Parent Score: 2