I think in the opposit we should urge US companies to fight against GDPR. Local foreign laws shouldn’t dictate how our companies should behave. Why not respecting speech laws in China or in Russia if we follow this precedent?
GDPR is more overeaching than that. You don’t need physical presence in EU to be subject to it. In theory, just having a webserver storing access logs (default of Apache and Nginx) makes you infringing it as EU IPs are now considered personal data.
Here's the part of it that covers your webserver: "Whereas the mere accessibility of the controller's, processor's or an intermediary's website in the Union, of an email address or of other contact details, or the use of a language generally used in the third country where the controller is established, is insufficient to ascertain such intention, [...]".
> envisage d'offrir des services à des personnes concernées dans un ou plusieurs États membres de l'Union
They just have to prove you are considering EU in your app. It can be anything. Like Having EU timezones, or a country input with EU countries is enough to prove intent to server EU residents. If you collect IPs via your web sever, you are infringing.
> is enough to prove intent to server EU residents
Given that it's still April, there's literally no way for you to know that. Also, the sentence you're quoting starts with "may make it apparent" not "does make it apparent".
Having said that, if you're building a service that let's people select EU timezones, countries, currencies and so on you're probably going to have a hard time proving that you're not providing goods or services to Europeans (because you probably are). If you're providing goods or services to Europeans GDPR applies.
Yeah and unless you don't business in the EU as an EU entity, you can pay just as much attention to that as EU companies who don't do business in the US as a US company pay to the trainwreck that are American software patents.
You are making the wrong assumptions. I am a EU citizen, but live in the US. I will vote in an heartbeat for a 1st amendment like in an Europe law. You just don’t see how Europe speech is reatricted, and how laws like GDPR contributes to it.
You're moving the goalposts. Your statement suggested you want a US-style "1st amendment" in Europe. I don't. That has nothing to do with "free speech" as a concept.
Under the US interpretation of free speech political donations are protected as "speech" and politicians can go on TV and say they want someone to be murdered and not face any consequences.
I'm German so you can imagine why I fundamentally disagree with that notion, even if our laws are sometimes a bit too strict (though that often has more to do with post-WW2 denazification than free speech in particular -- e.g. not being allowed to put nazi symbology in video games, not even as enemies).
UK libel laws and their advertising code are another example of European laws being a bit too strict. But even that is something I'd prefer over the "law of the strongest" in the US.
EDIT: Free speech is obviously a great idea and an important right, but the problem with freedoms and rights is that they can't be absolutes when you live in a society with other people you want to share those rights and freedoms ("your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"). Additionally some of those freedoms and rights are mutually exclusive so you need to define an order of precedence. Even free speech absolutists generally draw the line somewhere (e.g. generally violence isn't considered speech even if it is a form of expression and few people would defend the right to shout "fire" in a crowded building and not facing the consequences of the resulting mayhem).
In other words "being willing to defend free speech" is a meaningless platitude unless you first define what you consider the acceptable limits of that freedom.
The First Amendment protects you from the government. Facebook censoring you is not prohibited by the First Amendment. More broadly, I don’t see how GDPR interferes with one’s right to lawful political speech.
It says nothing in the text of the first amendment that direct threats of violence are not covered. If that restriction is compatible with the first amendment I don't see why a future right to be forgotten can't be.
Blockchains storing social data is good example. It's infringing by nature GDPR. A decentralised facebook-like social network on the blockchain is not possible anymore. Each node can be sue. It had happened with TOR exit nodes.
IANAL, but crypto-shredding seems to be a viable way to meet GDPR deletion requirements, making it possible to implement compliant blockchains. Of course you'd have to make the nodes comply, but that has nothing to do with blockchains.
But I still don't see the connection with the first amendment.
Yes, protects, it doesn't require them to. Facebook and its likes volunteering to destroy personal data on request really doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment at all.
Edit: come to think of it I'm not even sure it protects them, but again, it certainly doesn't require them to store or transmit anything.
If you want to run a social media platform, GDPR is infringing your freemdom of speech. You can argue that it’s worth it, for the illusion of more privacy. I just don’t think it is.
If on your social network someone wants his posts to be removed, you have to comply under GDPR, or else. HN for example doesn’t allow to remove your comments after some time.
If it's a part of conversation - like most of social media posts -, I would assume it's fair use to keep it. Like if I interview you, and I publish the video, you can't retract what you said. Why social medias should be different?
It's obviously not suggesting using the GDPR whatever that may turn into in the future, but the contents of the GDPR.
Though I think you're right that they would fight it. It's one thing to have your competitors voluntarily adopt a privacy policy that makes them less profitable, but it's another matter if users flock to them and end up eroding the profit margins of the whole privacy violation industry.
Who said anything about the police? The GDPR does not say that the police has the right remove stuff. It allows courts to rule that a company must comply to a removal order.
GDPR is a threat to freedom of speech while not changing much in term of privacy as worst actors is governements themselves. Edward Snowden revalations are 100x worse than whatever worse FB scenario you are picking.
GDPR sets a bad precedent with local laws impacting foreign businesses. In this logic, why Chinese speech laws shouldn’t apply to EU and US companies if GDPR applies globally?
Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other country laws. My original point is that GDPR is fundamently wrong. It’s infringing with freedom of speech by making new social network harder to create for dubious privacy gains. If you think FB is wrong, the best way to take it down is to replace it, not try to make it compliant.
> Chefs / Pastry Chefs (Delightful): Lots of people love cooking or baking (including me!) and they think that means that it would be a good career. Unfortunately, based on the basic principles of supply and demand, this leads to more people wanting to be chefs than one would see if it didn’t look so fun. Too many cooks spoil the market for restaurant labor.
I am not sure if the author ever talked to a cook or a baker.
Former chef turned tech dork here: Anyone who says "I want to own my own restaurant, it sounds like fun!" will immediately be destroyed. People who don't burn out of the restaurant industry (or get stuck in rehab/o.d.) typically love their craft and work like lunatics. It makes the tech sector work/life balance look like paradise. You stay in the field because you enjoy the lifestyle and get off on the adrenaline rush.
Restaurants don't pay anything because the learning curve is low enough that you can just train line cooks on the job. And chefs tend to just be smart dudes who could deal with lifestyle long enough to get into manager roles. Most normal, sane people don't work as cooks because they wouldn't be willing to put up with the physical/mental stress for so little pay. It's a refuge of maniacs and the desperate.
You have a point (I'm the author). When I was young I had a few friends who were line cooks at Olive Garden, and they didn't believe they were going to have a great career staying in that kind of work. It was just a job that they were able to get at an entry-level without any training. But I also have multiple friends and family members who went to culinary school in hopes of becoming chefs at their own restaurants. Mostly this has not turned out very well financially for them. For the same amount of work if they had gone to trade school, any of them could have a job that pays well.
First mistake: going to culinary school with the hopes of being a chef at their own restaurant. I'm 3rd+ generation restaurant worker. Watch my mom go bankrupt twice opening her own places. Restaurants are a completely misunderstood industry because too many people forget it's a business first and "cooking with love" second.
Quick story: My best friend in culinary school already had a BA in education when she got into the field. She went the hotel route, got a masters in Hospitality and now manages food/bev at a large Boston hospital. She loves food and cooking, but she also realizes that it's a job first and that she can always do her fun stuff at home.
Working as a cook/chef can be a great career, but most people have no clue what the industry actually looks like when they start to gravitate towards it. I don't think this is unique to that industry, just something most career chefs recognize as part of what keeps the industry full of new bright eyed idiots to burn out after a few months and pay low wages.
Heck, Donald Trump isn't even President yet. If these kids are "dying of climate change" it might be Obama's responsibility, but it's hard to see how it could have anything to do with Trump.
> Then there are the embarrassing things like I couldn't find the shortcut to go to the end of the current line. On Linux it's the End key - on Mac I assume it's some combination somewhere.
Crt+a. Every emacs shortcuts work everywhere in MacOS.
The canonical way for the End key is fn + right arrow, fn + left arrow for Home, and fn + up/down arrow for Page Up/Down. And you can even use Del with fn + Backspace! But me too, I prefer the emacs shortcuts.
