Rare Earth Elements could be big business for West Virginia(wowktv.com)
wowktv.com
Rare Earth Elements could be big business for West Virginia
https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/rare-earth-elements-could-be-big-business-for-wv/2037113435
92 comments
https://outline.com/h5wwjq
Can anyone explain what makes the mining and processing of Rare Earth Metals so toxic.
I've read in some places that it is normally found with Thorium, is that the main problem?
I've read in some places that it is normally found with Thorium, is that the main problem?
From what I have read (Im no expert on this) I think they basically have to mine dirt and then put the dirt in a slew of toxic chemicals that break down everything but the rare earth minerals. It leaves the issue of having large amounts of toxic chemicals that need to be disposed of. So any country with lax environmental laws don't have this huge cost (For example CHina just dumps it in the rivers where in the US you would need to spend large amounts of money disposing of it properly.
Plot twist: there's no miners available because they all learned to code instead.
Please don't post unsubstantive or snarky comments here. Also: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Further to this plot twist: All those coders could not get jobs because they were scammed[1], so actually, all the miners are available!
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/us/mined-minds-west-virgi...
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/us/mined-minds-west-virgi...
Complete with photos of the facility, almost ready to go. This should neatly parry the recent 'press speculation' about China banning rare-earth exports.
Who said governments use the press as unofficial communication channels, to make threats etc, not to mention regional governments fishing for funding? Not me...
Who said governments use the press as unofficial communication channels, to make threats etc, not to mention regional governments fishing for funding? Not me...
Last time this happened in 2008 Goldman pumped and dumped Molycorp. I don’t know how banks get away with this behavior.
From what I gather, there is a decent stock of reserves in San Benito between LA and Vegas. Before the ionic clays in China, the mine was responsible for some 90+% of global rare earths production.
For those of you looking to trade off the info, Lynas on the ASX is the play. The news is already priced in but it’s inexact.
From what I gather, there is a decent stock of reserves in San Benito between LA and Vegas. Before the ionic clays in China, the mine was responsible for some 90+% of global rare earths production.
For those of you looking to trade off the info, Lynas on the ASX is the play. The news is already priced in but it’s inexact.
Japan has made a huge discovery of rare earth minerals off their coast. The only question is if they can figure out a way to economically harvest them.
https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-discovered-a-rare-earth-m...
https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-discovered-a-rare-earth-m...
Huh, acid mine drainage is a new one.
Others are coal ash and spent nuclear fuel rods.
Others are coal ash and spent nuclear fuel rods.
Weeell, there goes Virginia's craft beer industry. Having to filter this out of their water is not gonna help flavor at all.
Lots of craft beer producers filter their water anyway to start with a consistent baseline and then add whatever they need to get the water profile they want for the particular beer they're brewing
WV and VA are separate states.
The watershed laughs at human borders.
In this case, there's a continental divide inbetween.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Continental_Divide#/me...
What are you attempting to convey?
Water flows downhill, ignoring man-made political borders.
Geography and topography influence human-made political borders, particularly in the regions referenced.
Mandatory toe dip. I’m in the mining game and stories about metals commodity shortage like these come around all the time and it’s laughable.
You here about the popular ones (rare earth, lithium etc) but there are plenty of others. (We just finished going through a vanadium shortage apparently).
It’s so bad all it takes for an exploration company to get a substantial bump in share price is to mention it. During the great lithium shortage, the amount of companies who had a large bump for just mentioning that they would be investigating old core samples for lithium was ridiculous.
Argh.
You here about the popular ones (rare earth, lithium etc) but there are plenty of others. (We just finished going through a vanadium shortage apparently).
It’s so bad all it takes for an exploration company to get a substantial bump in share price is to mention it. During the great lithium shortage, the amount of companies who had a large bump for just mentioning that they would be investigating old core samples for lithium was ridiculous.
Argh.
Remember the big concern about cobalt in the 1970s (I think it was)? People were talking about mining the sea floor for that one.
It's not that the shortages don't almost happen, it's that the free market is good at fixing them. If the warnings come, people will think they can make a bunch of money by mining, and they will invest in solving the problem.
>it's that the free market is good at fixing them
I love this phase. Has there been any incidents that Free Market failed to fix in terms of mining or commodity trading?
I love this phase. Has there been any incidents that Free Market failed to fix in terms of mining or commodity trading?
Inelastic goods that lack subsitutes - usually subsitutes are readily available even if they are inferior. Using wooden plows instead of steel ones is technically a fix to the problem even with the performance loss involved.
The Irish Potato famine technically qualifies as one given Malthusian claptrap was used to excuse exporting grain in a famine as "addressing unsustainable population growth".
The failure there was that the farmers couldn't afford the available food despite being responsible for its production. The rentseekers played themselves too by damaging their investment - Ireland's population /still/ hasn't caught up.
The Irish Potato famine technically qualifies as one given Malthusian claptrap was used to excuse exporting grain in a famine as "addressing unsustainable population growth".
The failure there was that the farmers couldn't afford the available food despite being responsible for its production. The rentseekers played themselves too by damaging their investment - Ireland's population /still/ hasn't caught up.
No, because the Free Market can only solve problems. Any time it fails to do so it is because an external force interfered.
Wasn't that a misinformation cover story by CIA for the Glomar Explorer so they could retrieve a sunken Soviet sub?
Hughes told the media that the ship's purpose was to extract manganese nodules from the ocean floor.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
It's funny that everyone else seemed to have bought it at the time. My father worked for a company that repaired ships at sea at the time, and he apparently went out on a cruise where they harvested manganese nodules.
I don't know if it was the ship's owners figuring that if hughes wants it it must be valuable, or if it's the CIA spreading the wealth to make its cover story more plausible, but I do know he has that nodule somewhere.
I don't know if it was the ship's owners figuring that if hughes wants it it must be valuable, or if it's the CIA spreading the wealth to make its cover story more plausible, but I do know he has that nodule somewhere.
The nodules exist.
Recovery is not economically viable. Unless you can also harvest Red Subs.
Recovery is not economically viable. Unless you can also harvest Red Subs.
I think the real question is recovery is not viable at $x/ton.
Given a high enough x, going to the moon/asteroids start looking attractive as well.
Given a high enough x, going to the moon/asteroids start looking attractive as well.
Actually, people are now seriously starting to mine these things. It's a big environmental disaster in the making.
Manganese, not cobalt. Glomar Challenger cover story.
Uni prof of mine was on the ship. Had no idea of the true mission until he read about it in the papers.
Uni prof of mine was on the ship. Had no idea of the true mission until he read about it in the papers.
Manganese nodules contain many metals, not just manganese. In fact they are often called polymetallic nodules.
(Learned this from Night of Error by Desmond Bagley; not his best novel, published posthumously in 1984).
(Learned this from Night of Error by Desmond Bagley; not his best novel, published posthumously in 1984).
Manganese nodules were being investigated not for their manganese -- they would have totally flooded that market -- but for the less abundant but more lucrative metals like cobalt they also contain.
I conducted reasearch on the proposed enterprise in the 1980s. A goal, and the primary one evident in the literature, was manganese nodule mining. Producing manganese.
I don't have my original references handy, but some citations:
https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0143008
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160932778...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03354283
I don't have my original references handy, but some citations:
https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0143008
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160932778...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03354283
The market price of cobalt now is around $38/lb.
The market price of Mn ore is about $0.01/lb of contained Mn.
A good Mn nodule might contain 1% cobalt. It would be really stupid to mine these things for their manganese. Of course you'd sell what Mn you could, but that's not the value proposition here.
The market price of Mn ore is about $0.01/lb of contained Mn.
A good Mn nodule might contain 1% cobalt. It would be really stupid to mine these things for their manganese. Of course you'd sell what Mn you could, but that's not the value proposition here.
Show me the contemporary (1970s) references stating cobalt, not manganese, was the primary goal.
Keep in mind: this was a cover story. It needn't be rational, merely plausible.
Keep in mind: this was a cover story. It needn't be rational, merely plausible.
I can show you historical price data on the price of cobalt vs. the price of manganese ore. If anything, the price ratio was even higher back then.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188/sir2012-5188.pdf
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188/sir2012-5188.pdf
The helium shortage seems to come up a lot lately. Not mining, I understand, but that's what came to mind.
From what I understand, the helium shortage is mostly due to current price. Price will go up, more plants will go up, and there is plenty in natural gas deposits. The feds have just been dumping at artificially low prices. Prices are already increasing, and NASCO just put up a new plant a few months ago.
The shortage of almost any commodity or product is due to price. The earth has abundant amounts of rare earth elements, hydrocarbons, gold, platinum, silver etc.
The iron laws of commodity trading are supply and demand curves.
A non existent supply curve basically never exists. There is almost always a price with which one can acquire a commodity or bring in supply. As you stated in the helium case, prices may need to rise for increased supply to come on absent new technology.
Side note: Whale oil is about the only “useful” commodity I can think of that was almost eliminated entirely. Whales were basically saved by the oil and coal industries as lamps moved from whale oil, to kero, and eventually incandescent light. Ironically these industries now threaten sea life through pollution and global warming, but they were initially a saviour of the whales.
The iron laws of commodity trading are supply and demand curves.
A non existent supply curve basically never exists. There is almost always a price with which one can acquire a commodity or bring in supply. As you stated in the helium case, prices may need to rise for increased supply to come on absent new technology.
Side note: Whale oil is about the only “useful” commodity I can think of that was almost eliminated entirely. Whales were basically saved by the oil and coal industries as lamps moved from whale oil, to kero, and eventually incandescent light. Ironically these industries now threaten sea life through pollution and global warming, but they were initially a saviour of the whales.
> Whales were basically saved by the oil and coal industries as lamps moved from whale oil, to kero, and eventually incandescent light.
Also, AFAIR, synthetic lubricants.
Also, AFAIR, synthetic lubricants.
From what I understand, whale oil is still one of the best choices in many machine applications (including cars) and wasn't really killed so much by synthetic lubricants as by the Endangered Species Act.
I heard the exact opposite - that no amount of environmentalist pressure helped, and the problem fixed itself as soon as synthetic lubricants became good and cheap enough. Unfortunately I don't have any source for that; I read it somewhere and remembered as an interesting tidbit.
You are correct. Endangered species protection didn’t mean shit at the time. Easy to access whales near shore were nearly wiped out, and whalers pursued deeper international waters for “supply”. For more information on this, I highly recommend the book, “1000 barrels a second” by Peter Tertzakian, the executive director of Arc Energy. The book is a bit dated (pre fracking revolution), but very good. By pure luck in timing, and the increasing cost of pursuing whales as they were thinned out, economic oil production saved the day for our whales.
Interestingly, the exact same story has played out in oil. Easy to access conventional fields in politically stable countries was first drained, then producers had to go further and deeper offshore, and into politically unstable countries for supply.
Once again a “magic bullet” of technological development saved the day. Fracking replenished stable supplies and pushed a supply shortage out significantly, buying us some time to transition to cleaner energy. It is important to not squander this time that we were once again lucky to come into at the right time or we could face a massive economic disruption as large fracking fields like the Permian are drained over the next 15-30 years.
We can only get lucky so many times.
I’ve worked in energy trading (oil, gas, power) my whole career. If anyone has any questions on commodities trading, risk, business development, or quantitative analysis in the commodities trading field, feel free to reach out.
Interestingly, the exact same story has played out in oil. Easy to access conventional fields in politically stable countries was first drained, then producers had to go further and deeper offshore, and into politically unstable countries for supply.
Once again a “magic bullet” of technological development saved the day. Fracking replenished stable supplies and pushed a supply shortage out significantly, buying us some time to transition to cleaner energy. It is important to not squander this time that we were once again lucky to come into at the right time or we could face a massive economic disruption as large fracking fields like the Permian are drained over the next 15-30 years.
We can only get lucky so many times.
I’ve worked in energy trading (oil, gas, power) my whole career. If anyone has any questions on commodities trading, risk, business development, or quantitative analysis in the commodities trading field, feel free to reach out.
"This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws."
HN should ban links to sites with policies like that. It certainly reduces the value of HN. It's essentially spam to anyone here.
Such a list would need to be created and maintained. I'm not sure that would be a great use of limited resources.
The practice we've been following so far is switching URLs to a more accessible article on the same story. And users often post workarounds in the threads. For example, this may work for you: https://web.archive.org/web/20190530100102/https://www.wowkt....
The practice we've been following so far is switching URLs to a more accessible article on the same story. And users often post workarounds in the threads. For example, this may work for you: https://web.archive.org/web/20190530100102/https://www.wowkt....
The behaviour could be to some extent either autodetected via remote proxies or crowdsourced, possibly via trusted contributors.
Even a partially-effective list of high-profile instances would be useful.
Removal procedure might also be considered. Automated, with an integrated proxy check, might work.
Even a partially-effective list of high-profile instances would be useful.
Removal procedure might also be considered. Automated, with an integrated proxy check, might work.
Our experience with automating things like that is that it's too hard to get right. Maybe we could if we tried hard enough, but at the cost of other things that probably matter more.
Fair enough, though submitted.
What, are we going to ban links that are blocked by the Great Firewall of China because the 1.3 billion mainland Chinese can't view it (a group about 2x the population of Europe)? Region-blocked content due to legal reasons is extremely common and it long predates GDPR. Plenty of YouTube videos are region blocked due to copyright differences.
There's no region blocking being forced on this poor site by anybody. The site is choosing this absurd behavior itself.
And that's fine and all. But unless HN aims to be local-interest only, pretty please don't bother me with junk like this. At least redirect me to some nice rick astley, so I can appreciate the sad joke.
And that's fine and all. But unless HN aims to be local-interest only, pretty please don't bother me with junk like this. At least redirect me to some nice rick astley, so I can appreciate the sad joke.
> There's no region blocking being forced on this poor site by anybody. The site is choosing this absurd behavior itself.
Well, it's "choosing this absurd behavior itself" insofar as risking tens of millions of dollars in fines for violating murky and ambiguous that can be interpreted differently in any of the 28 member states counts as "choosing the behavior itself". And companies blocked by the great firewall can simply choose to comply with whatever the CCP tells them to do, too. So in a sense they're choosing to be blocked as well.
> And that's fine and all. But unless HN aims to be local-interest only, pretty please don't bother me with junk like this. At least redirect me to some nice rick astley, so I can appreciate the sad joke.
The EU consists makes up 7% of the global population. The fact that EU residents can't access the content hardly makes it "local-interest".
Well, it's "choosing this absurd behavior itself" insofar as risking tens of millions of dollars in fines for violating murky and ambiguous that can be interpreted differently in any of the 28 member states counts as "choosing the behavior itself". And companies blocked by the great firewall can simply choose to comply with whatever the CCP tells them to do, too. So in a sense they're choosing to be blocked as well.
> And that's fine and all. But unless HN aims to be local-interest only, pretty please don't bother me with junk like this. At least redirect me to some nice rick astley, so I can appreciate the sad joke.
The EU consists makes up 7% of the global population. The fact that EU residents can't access the content hardly makes it "local-interest".
> Well, it's "choosing this absurd behavior itself" insofar as risking tens of millions of dollars in fines for violating murky and ambiguous that can be interpreted differently in any of the 28 member states counts as "choosing the behavior itself". And companies blocked by the great firewall can simply choose to comply with whatever the CCP tells them to do, too. So in a sense they're choosing to be blocked as well.
That's just nonsense. It could (shocking I know) (1) try not to save personally identifiable data for undefined periods of time; and (2) accept that it has no business presence in the EU and thus flout the law with no repercussions; or (3) use a modicum of common sense and notice that just because there exist maximum penalties for truly egregious behavior doesn't mean they're in any risk of those if they're non-malicious, especially given the not-exactly hard-to-find actually assessed penalties are nothing like what you're saying there for behavior that's much worse than anything I can imagine a local news station doing unless they really are Machiavellian; and (4) note that GDPR regulators have approximately a googleplex of more relevant cases, and are literally never ever going to be interested in them; and (5) not forget they;re likely in some technical sense breaking untold laws in all kind of jurisdictions even closer to home, and the sky isn't falling.
This is just FUD. And comparing the censorship by the great firewall with the truly onerous restriction not to cyber-stalk all of your users is a farce.
That's just nonsense. It could (shocking I know) (1) try not to save personally identifiable data for undefined periods of time; and (2) accept that it has no business presence in the EU and thus flout the law with no repercussions; or (3) use a modicum of common sense and notice that just because there exist maximum penalties for truly egregious behavior doesn't mean they're in any risk of those if they're non-malicious, especially given the not-exactly hard-to-find actually assessed penalties are nothing like what you're saying there for behavior that's much worse than anything I can imagine a local news station doing unless they really are Machiavellian; and (4) note that GDPR regulators have approximately a googleplex of more relevant cases, and are literally never ever going to be interested in them; and (5) not forget they;re likely in some technical sense breaking untold laws in all kind of jurisdictions even closer to home, and the sky isn't falling.
This is just FUD. And comparing the censorship by the great firewall with the truly onerous restriction not to cyber-stalk all of your users is a farce.
It takes a hell of a lot more than a "modicum of common sense" to comply with GDPR. If you really just think that saying "well I'm not going to save PII indefinitely" is enough, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit.
Did you go through every layer of your stack and ensure that every tool and platform you use doesn't log or persist PII? Did you think of justifications for every use of PII? Did you consult with attorneys on these justifications, or are you just hoping that all 28 member states of the EU agree with your personal opinion? And don't forget you need to build a system to give people all the info you have on them at their request.
Points 3, 4, and 5 basically amount to, "well, as long as I have good intentions I'm sure the government won't sue me even if I do screw up and violate GDPR". You might be willing to risk your business on this assumption. But if that's the case then I sure wouldn't want my retirement funds invested in your company.
Put yourself in the shoes of a West Virginia local news station. What percentage of your revenue comes from EU users? Does it even remotely justify the cost to audit all of your tech and make it GDPR compliant - let alone run the risk that one of the 28 EU member states interprets GDPR differently than you do? Chances are, it doesn't. This is the natural consequence of regulation. People who don't have interest in complying with it leave the market.
Did you go through every layer of your stack and ensure that every tool and platform you use doesn't log or persist PII? Did you think of justifications for every use of PII? Did you consult with attorneys on these justifications, or are you just hoping that all 28 member states of the EU agree with your personal opinion? And don't forget you need to build a system to give people all the info you have on them at their request.
Points 3, 4, and 5 basically amount to, "well, as long as I have good intentions I'm sure the government won't sue me even if I do screw up and violate GDPR". You might be willing to risk your business on this assumption. But if that's the case then I sure wouldn't want my retirement funds invested in your company.
Put yourself in the shoes of a West Virginia local news station. What percentage of your revenue comes from EU users? Does it even remotely justify the cost to audit all of your tech and make it GDPR compliant - let alone run the risk that one of the 28 EU member states interprets GDPR differently than you do? Chances are, it doesn't. This is the natural consequence of regulation. People who don't have interest in complying with it leave the market.
I understand the worries; and the fact that it's a local interest site. Hence the appeal to HN to block such links, since HN is presumably not local-interest.
But while the massive media blitz on the GDPR makes it appear terrifying; it doesn't magically grant jurisdiction over a local west virginia site. The enforcement agency isn't likely to bother, because they have no means to enforce any sanction.
It's not even clear to me whether the GDPR even applies; article 3(1) says that "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not."
Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
Yes, if a hostile foreign regulator wanted to fine them - they probably could find some pretext. But that's likely the case under any number of other laws too! But there's simply no motivation for a foreign regulator to do so; and numerous motivations for them not to. (A) they might fail, (B) there's not much to win, even if they do, (C) they do actually need evidence, and if the site at least attempted not to collect PII, then there is likely not to be any easily accessible evidence, so it's going to be a lot of work, (D) the politics are terrible, which regulators are far from immune from; (E) even if they "win" it's not clear they can collect.
The real risk here seems overstated - as in, does anybody think there is ever going to be a single case like this resulting in a fine? Literally ever?
Note furthermore that their IP filter is likely insufficient anyhow. IP filters are never reliable for all kinds of reasons, e.g. VPNs, out of date filtering rules, etc, and the law applies to natural persons in the EU regardless of where you think they are. And it's not entirely clear to me that it doesn't apply to EU persons that happen to be on vacation (even if it does not, it almost certainly does the moment the vacation is over and the site has not wiped the PII - it's not like that magically dissappears).
The only tricky bit in avoiding PII (for news sites!) is going to be embeds (i.e. ads). But this affects the adtech firms much more than them; most of them need to have some solution (e.g. a contextual ad mode). Some local news site almost certainly doesn't need to solve this; they likely only need to check the right box for the adtech firm to do so; which is probably not a lot harder than the solution they've chosen now.
Finally: none of this is happening in a vacuum, nor overnight. The few cases so far have been either pretty egregious, limited to largely symbolic fines, or both. And that's just natural (given the way the GDPR was set up): the worst excesses are the most likely to be addressed first (don't forget that the GDPR is not enforceable by an individual no matter how egregious the violation, all they can do is refer a site, which serves as a filter).
All in all: this sounds like an overreaction. Maybe it's a cultural thing too; lawsuits with huge punitive fines are much more common in the US, so the habit of avoiding liability is perhaps more deeply ingrained. But again, the risk seems trivial. And you know, if you don't care about overseas readers, would it kill you to be so polite as to say so? It currently says only: "Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." That's just a lie, likely both parts of it.
But back to my original request: even if the site has zero costs from doing this, and it really wants to avoid accidental mistakes: that doesn't make them any less spam in the HN feed, which was my initial point: HN is less valuable to EU residents if contains spam like this.
But while the massive media blitz on the GDPR makes it appear terrifying; it doesn't magically grant jurisdiction over a local west virginia site. The enforcement agency isn't likely to bother, because they have no means to enforce any sanction.
It's not even clear to me whether the GDPR even applies; article 3(1) says that "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not."
Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
Yes, if a hostile foreign regulator wanted to fine them - they probably could find some pretext. But that's likely the case under any number of other laws too! But there's simply no motivation for a foreign regulator to do so; and numerous motivations for them not to. (A) they might fail, (B) there's not much to win, even if they do, (C) they do actually need evidence, and if the site at least attempted not to collect PII, then there is likely not to be any easily accessible evidence, so it's going to be a lot of work, (D) the politics are terrible, which regulators are far from immune from; (E) even if they "win" it's not clear they can collect.
The real risk here seems overstated - as in, does anybody think there is ever going to be a single case like this resulting in a fine? Literally ever?
Note furthermore that their IP filter is likely insufficient anyhow. IP filters are never reliable for all kinds of reasons, e.g. VPNs, out of date filtering rules, etc, and the law applies to natural persons in the EU regardless of where you think they are. And it's not entirely clear to me that it doesn't apply to EU persons that happen to be on vacation (even if it does not, it almost certainly does the moment the vacation is over and the site has not wiped the PII - it's not like that magically dissappears).
The only tricky bit in avoiding PII (for news sites!) is going to be embeds (i.e. ads). But this affects the adtech firms much more than them; most of them need to have some solution (e.g. a contextual ad mode). Some local news site almost certainly doesn't need to solve this; they likely only need to check the right box for the adtech firm to do so; which is probably not a lot harder than the solution they've chosen now.
Finally: none of this is happening in a vacuum, nor overnight. The few cases so far have been either pretty egregious, limited to largely symbolic fines, or both. And that's just natural (given the way the GDPR was set up): the worst excesses are the most likely to be addressed first (don't forget that the GDPR is not enforceable by an individual no matter how egregious the violation, all they can do is refer a site, which serves as a filter).
All in all: this sounds like an overreaction. Maybe it's a cultural thing too; lawsuits with huge punitive fines are much more common in the US, so the habit of avoiding liability is perhaps more deeply ingrained. But again, the risk seems trivial. And you know, if you don't care about overseas readers, would it kill you to be so polite as to say so? It currently says only: "Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." That's just a lie, likely both parts of it.
But back to my original request: even if the site has zero costs from doing this, and it really wants to avoid accidental mistakes: that doesn't make them any less spam in the HN feed, which was my initial point: HN is less valuable to EU residents if contains spam like this.
> But while the massive media blitz on the GDPR makes it appear terrifying; it doesn't magically grant jurisdiction over a local west virginia site. The enforcement agency isn't likely to bother, because they have no means to enforce any sanction.
Yeah, they do. The EU issues them a fine, and they don't pay. Okay, nothing happens to them. But now if any of the the executives or board members or anyone else who can be held liable for their failure to pay the fine can never visit an EU country without fear of being held accountable for their failure to pay that fine.
>Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
This is false. GDPR applies to any company that collects data on customers in the US. If you run a site, and an EU user connects to it then GDPR mandates that you follow the GDPR rules for that EU user. [1] This is pretty screwed when you really think about it. Can Saudi Arabia outlaw Facebook from letting Saudi women post profiles without Burkas? Can they outlaw Facebook from allowing Saudi users from blaspheming Islam? Granted in practice, US companies are probably just going to tell the Saudis to eat shit. But that introduces the other gnarly question: which countries or pan-national organizations do have the right to govern beyond their borders (and, crucially, why do they get to do this and not others)?
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/04/ye... I confirmed this for myself in the GDPR text. If you insist, I'll dig it up for you.
> All in all: this sounds like an overreaction. Maybe it's a cultural thing too; lawsuits with huge punitive fines are much more common in the US, so the habit of avoiding liability is perhaps more deeply ingrained. But again, the risk seems trivial. And you know, if you don't care about overseas readers, would it kill you to be so polite as to say so? It currently says only: "Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." That's just a lie, likely both parts of it.
It's pretty clear that the EU wants tech companies, especially American ones, to bleed. Headline after headline in European articles from the Economist to The Guardian and others are calling for fines against American tech companies. You're right that showing a message, "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws" is misleading. It should really read, "Your government has instituted vague and overly broad regulation on data collection which, coupled with a hostile attitude towards American tech companies, makes us unwilling to serve EU visitors".
Yeah, they do. The EU issues them a fine, and they don't pay. Okay, nothing happens to them. But now if any of the the executives or board members or anyone else who can be held liable for their failure to pay the fine can never visit an EU country without fear of being held accountable for their failure to pay that fine.
>Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
This is false. GDPR applies to any company that collects data on customers in the US. If you run a site, and an EU user connects to it then GDPR mandates that you follow the GDPR rules for that EU user. [1] This is pretty screwed when you really think about it. Can Saudi Arabia outlaw Facebook from letting Saudi women post profiles without Burkas? Can they outlaw Facebook from allowing Saudi users from blaspheming Islam? Granted in practice, US companies are probably just going to tell the Saudis to eat shit. But that introduces the other gnarly question: which countries or pan-national organizations do have the right to govern beyond their borders (and, crucially, why do they get to do this and not others)?
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/04/ye... I confirmed this for myself in the GDPR text. If you insist, I'll dig it up for you.
> All in all: this sounds like an overreaction. Maybe it's a cultural thing too; lawsuits with huge punitive fines are much more common in the US, so the habit of avoiding liability is perhaps more deeply ingrained. But again, the risk seems trivial. And you know, if you don't care about overseas readers, would it kill you to be so polite as to say so? It currently says only: "Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." That's just a lie, likely both parts of it.
It's pretty clear that the EU wants tech companies, especially American ones, to bleed. Headline after headline in European articles from the Economist to The Guardian and others are calling for fines against American tech companies. You're right that showing a message, "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws" is misleading. It should really read, "Your government has instituted vague and overly broad regulation on data collection which, coupled with a hostile attitude towards American tech companies, makes us unwilling to serve EU visitors".
> Yeah, they do. The EU issues them a fine, and they don't pay. Okay, nothing happens to them. But now if any of the the executives or board members or anyone else who can be held liable for their failure to pay the fine can never visit an EU country without fear of being held accountable for their failure to pay that fine.
If a long particular chain of events were to come to pass then it's theoretically possible a director might be issued a fine. But the sequence of events required is absurd and long; west virginia is more likely to be exterminated by meteor strike than this. And even then: that's assuming the website and director are actively self-destructive because even with this long chain of events you can't convince me there isn't some moment before then that they could intervene to avoid meaningful consequences. I don't think we will ever, in the history of the GDPR enforcement, ever see a case like the one you're describing leading to a meaningful fine. Sure, that's just my guess, and IANAL, and cultural differences in litigation and all that, but hey.
>> Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
>This is false. GDPR applies to any company that collects data on customers in the US. If you run a site, and an EU user connects to it then GDPR mandates that you follow the GDPR rules for that EU user. [...]I confirmed this for myself in the GDPR text. If you insist, I'll dig it up for you.
I dug it up: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
...and you're right.
> It's pretty clear that the EU wants tech companies, especially American ones, to bleed. Headline after headline in European articles from the Economist to The Guardian and others are calling for fines against American tech companies.
I don't think you're wrong here, but I think you're misplacing the emphasis. And as an American I can understand it feels hostile. But the actual emphasis here is not on bleed, nor on American, but on tech-company.
There's a definite feeling here that tech companies are acting with impunity, that they feel like they can do whatever they want without serious repercussions and ask forgiveness later. So far, by the way: even with the GDPR, that is true, because it was affected by lobbying and thus the large tech companies are not quite as helpless as they at first appear; the fines (even in the GDPR) are actually quite low given what's at stake (i.e. to the extent that large specifically-tech firms are likely to be willing to take a few risks and skirt the law), and furthermore the law is quite vulnerable to regulatory capture precisely because only one DPA has jurisdiction - if the tech firms do their paperwork, and then national interest means things get messy. Time will tell if they get away with it, I have no idea.
But the law isn't as crazy as you make it out. There is no personal mandate; so all you can do as an individual is refer it to the DPA, and that means that small and unclear cases are automatically going to be irrelevant - which is by design, because it means the goalposts will naturally shift as firms get their acts together. In short; nobody can sue you under the GDPR, fixing the most egregious cases is going to be fine for years. Yes - that's not a guarantee, so it's scary, and that too, is by design. If you don't need to have all that privacy sensitive stuff flying around, you shouldn't.
Don't forget that the damage isn't hypothetical here: all that PII obviously distorts democracy and enables identity theft. It's already happening on a massive scale; if anything the GDPR is years late and much too lenient.
But your focus on bleed and American is wrong. People want them to stop collecting PII. The GDPR isn't well suited to make companies bleed; it's too easy to avoid it; it's never going to amount to a significant tax. Nor is the focus on American - it just so happens the large tech firms are American. But people are more worried about Russia or China getting their hands on the American data on Europeans, than specifically Americans. Where activities were in the EU (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) it's not like the kid gloves are on.
Incidentally that's not to say people don't want a tax on tech firms; certainly France does. But that's a different issue and the only relation to the GDPR really is that the systematic tax-evasion techniques exacerbate the sense of impunity.
> You're right that showing a message, "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws" is misleading. It should really read, "Your government has instituted vague and overly broad regulation on data collection which, coupled with a hostile attitude towards American tech companies, makes us unwilling to serve EU visitors".
That would be a much better message. Honestly! If that's there opinion I really respect that. I hope we can both agree that there are no easy answers on jurisdiction on the internet, and that the GDPR is at least understandable even if it's onerous to some, and certainly not an ideal solution.
I don't believe the current state of affairs - mass surveillance; extremely asymmetric power imbalance between collector and subjects; news filtered largely through tech-facilitated bubbles; democracy; an internet without any walls - is stable. Something is going to give. And I hope it's not democracy - but I'm not convinced.
Once something like this turns into a nationalist, patriotic issue, you can be absolutely sure that what's definitely going to die first is jurisdictional restraint and the wall-less internet. And that would be a shame.
If a long particular chain of events were to come to pass then it's theoretically possible a director might be issued a fine. But the sequence of events required is absurd and long; west virginia is more likely to be exterminated by meteor strike than this. And even then: that's assuming the website and director are actively self-destructive because even with this long chain of events you can't convince me there isn't some moment before then that they could intervene to avoid meaningful consequences. I don't think we will ever, in the history of the GDPR enforcement, ever see a case like the one you're describing leading to a meaningful fine. Sure, that's just my guess, and IANAL, and cultural differences in litigation and all that, but hey.
>> Is a west virginia site "established" in the EU? That's dubious enough that I doubt they need to worry - for now.
>This is false. GDPR applies to any company that collects data on customers in the US. If you run a site, and an EU user connects to it then GDPR mandates that you follow the GDPR rules for that EU user. [...]I confirmed this for myself in the GDPR text. If you insist, I'll dig it up for you.
I dug it up: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
...and you're right.
> It's pretty clear that the EU wants tech companies, especially American ones, to bleed. Headline after headline in European articles from the Economist to The Guardian and others are calling for fines against American tech companies.
I don't think you're wrong here, but I think you're misplacing the emphasis. And as an American I can understand it feels hostile. But the actual emphasis here is not on bleed, nor on American, but on tech-company.
There's a definite feeling here that tech companies are acting with impunity, that they feel like they can do whatever they want without serious repercussions and ask forgiveness later. So far, by the way: even with the GDPR, that is true, because it was affected by lobbying and thus the large tech companies are not quite as helpless as they at first appear; the fines (even in the GDPR) are actually quite low given what's at stake (i.e. to the extent that large specifically-tech firms are likely to be willing to take a few risks and skirt the law), and furthermore the law is quite vulnerable to regulatory capture precisely because only one DPA has jurisdiction - if the tech firms do their paperwork, and then national interest means things get messy. Time will tell if they get away with it, I have no idea.
But the law isn't as crazy as you make it out. There is no personal mandate; so all you can do as an individual is refer it to the DPA, and that means that small and unclear cases are automatically going to be irrelevant - which is by design, because it means the goalposts will naturally shift as firms get their acts together. In short; nobody can sue you under the GDPR, fixing the most egregious cases is going to be fine for years. Yes - that's not a guarantee, so it's scary, and that too, is by design. If you don't need to have all that privacy sensitive stuff flying around, you shouldn't.
Don't forget that the damage isn't hypothetical here: all that PII obviously distorts democracy and enables identity theft. It's already happening on a massive scale; if anything the GDPR is years late and much too lenient.
But your focus on bleed and American is wrong. People want them to stop collecting PII. The GDPR isn't well suited to make companies bleed; it's too easy to avoid it; it's never going to amount to a significant tax. Nor is the focus on American - it just so happens the large tech firms are American. But people are more worried about Russia or China getting their hands on the American data on Europeans, than specifically Americans. Where activities were in the EU (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) it's not like the kid gloves are on.
Incidentally that's not to say people don't want a tax on tech firms; certainly France does. But that's a different issue and the only relation to the GDPR really is that the systematic tax-evasion techniques exacerbate the sense of impunity.
> You're right that showing a message, "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws" is misleading. It should really read, "Your government has instituted vague and overly broad regulation on data collection which, coupled with a hostile attitude towards American tech companies, makes us unwilling to serve EU visitors".
That would be a much better message. Honestly! If that's there opinion I really respect that. I hope we can both agree that there are no easy answers on jurisdiction on the internet, and that the GDPR is at least understandable even if it's onerous to some, and certainly not an ideal solution.
I don't believe the current state of affairs - mass surveillance; extremely asymmetric power imbalance between collector and subjects; news filtered largely through tech-facilitated bubbles; democracy; an internet without any walls - is stable. Something is going to give. And I hope it's not democracy - but I'm not convinced.
Once something like this turns into a nationalist, patriotic issue, you can be absolutely sure that what's definitely going to die first is jurisdictional restraint and the wall-less internet. And that would be a shame.
Good suggestion. I've submitted it to [email protected]
Fair enough, I suppose.
Since I can't read the site, I can't draw any conclusions, but:
1. Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)?
2. The less intrusive your behaviour is, the less you have to worry about the GDPR. Aren't non-EU readers worried about visiting sites that completely block the EU as a preventive measure?
I'm pretty happy to be blocked though. It's a lot more honest and better than the song and dance some outlets put up trying to obfuscate compliance.
Since I can't read the site, I can't draw any conclusions, but:
1. Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)?
2. The less intrusive your behaviour is, the less you have to worry about the GDPR. Aren't non-EU readers worried about visiting sites that completely block the EU as a preventive measure?
I'm pretty happy to be blocked though. It's a lot more honest and better than the song and dance some outlets put up trying to obfuscate compliance.
West Virginia != Virginia.
only since 1863...
It was a rather important year. They were traitorous slaver-owners, we weren't.
>Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically
Hard, probably not. Profitable also probably not.
Hard, probably not. Profitable also probably not.
same here: i feel sorry for those not blocked
WOWK is a local CBS affiliate in West Virginia. I doubt they are seriously pursuing GDPR compliance and just disabled the site for EU members.
You are correct and I don't get why you're getting downvoted. A local news station giving a shit about someone across the pond's rules and regulations? Just block it and be done. Oh no, 10 people in the EU can't find up to the minute news about West Virginia. Y'all must be devastated. Hardly justifies wasting money on getting a lawyer to make sure they stay compliant.
Why not not block it, and be done? What's the EU going to do? Sue them in the EU? Good luck collecting if they West Virginia TV station doesn't have a business office in the EU (which I suspect they don't). Is the EU going to sue them in West Virginia? Yeah, good luck winning that case.
So why bother blocking? Not blocking seems even easier than blocking (unless someone is hosting their web presence, and needs EU compliance for some customers, and so just does it for everyone to not have different versions for different customers).
So why bother blocking? Not blocking seems even easier than blocking (unless someone is hosting their web presence, and needs EU compliance for some customers, and so just does it for everyone to not have different versions for different customers).
Hmmm, that's a good question. Before I begin, I'm not a lawyer. Just trying to use some logic on the matter.
I assume, but I don't know, it's probably just nipping the bud the potential hassle. What if a formal complaint is made? I'm not sure on the process on how an international kerfuffle would roll out. Especially between the EU and a state instead of directly the fed. Would it be made direct to the nation-state instead of state? Anyways, would you want that type of press to begin with? "Coal loving West Virginian local media monopoly based in the United Empire of America is spying and making dirty capitalist money by selling innocent EU citizen data".
I had fun writing that :)
Think of it this way.
1. Block out an extremely small and useless demographic and no potential bad happenings.
2. Don't block an extremely small/useless demographic and have the potential of having to answer to international litigation.
No matter how baseless the fascists at the EU are, an American lawyer still costs money, not hugs and kisses. Just blocking out the EU, using EU rules, is probably far cheaper and easier to deal with than not blocking and facing potential consequences.
To anyone looking at this that actually does international law, as a job, please, feel free to chime in.
I assume, but I don't know, it's probably just nipping the bud the potential hassle. What if a formal complaint is made? I'm not sure on the process on how an international kerfuffle would roll out. Especially between the EU and a state instead of directly the fed. Would it be made direct to the nation-state instead of state? Anyways, would you want that type of press to begin with? "Coal loving West Virginian local media monopoly based in the United Empire of America is spying and making dirty capitalist money by selling innocent EU citizen data".
I had fun writing that :)
Think of it this way.
1. Block out an extremely small and useless demographic and no potential bad happenings.
2. Don't block an extremely small/useless demographic and have the potential of having to answer to international litigation.
No matter how baseless the fascists at the EU are, an American lawyer still costs money, not hugs and kisses. Just blocking out the EU, using EU rules, is probably far cheaper and easier to deal with than not blocking and facing potential consequences.
To anyone looking at this that actually does international law, as a job, please, feel free to chime in.
It's probably a CBS policy, Viacom does have a European presence, so they are under GDPR purview.
It's not a local West Virginia site really.
It's not a local West Virginia site really.
> Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)?
Lots of normal, non-tracking, non-advertising activities run afoul of GDPR (such as detailed request logging), so it isn't that simple. I wish people would realize GDPR is far broader than just advertising surveillance.
Lots of normal, non-tracking, non-advertising activities run afoul of GDPR (such as detailed request logging), so it isn't that simple. I wish people would realize GDPR is far broader than just advertising surveillance.
It's also hobbled somewhat by the distinct lack of case law or other precedent. Much of it is subject to interpretation rather than explicit, and no one ones to be the poster child for the interpreting.
The import tariffs on foreign goods will definitely help US business. Less competition the better after all. I remember reading US steel companies raising prices when Euro and Canadian steel was slapped with punitive taxes.
It will definitely help some US businesses and will definitely hurt others. The same way import tariffs on steel are good for US steel companies, they are hurting the US companies who are using that US steel in their products.
And that's without taking retaliation tariffs into account.
Self-sufficiency has a cost, to be sure. But it also has value. Same as with foreign dependence -- we are re-learning that foreign dependency has downsides.
The rebuilding of America's industry is the inverse of the pain experienced during the tearing down of these industries during the American industrial bloodletting of the 1970s, when production was sent "overseas" (primarily China).
For GenX and younger, it's almost difficult to appreciate that America built almost everything it needed (including electronic components), and was the best in the world, 50 short years ago. One could open up a television or an automobile, and every component was made here. Now it is quite impossible because we have surrendered certain industries.
The rebuilding of America's industry is the inverse of the pain experienced during the tearing down of these industries during the American industrial bloodletting of the 1970s, when production was sent "overseas" (primarily China).
For GenX and younger, it's almost difficult to appreciate that America built almost everything it needed (including electronic components), and was the best in the world, 50 short years ago. One could open up a television or an automobile, and every component was made here. Now it is quite impossible because we have surrendered certain industries.
It hurts the US companies until they go back to using higher-quality US steel, which they should have been doing in the first place.
Chinese steel is of such low quality that, after wastage is accounted for, you essentially end up paying just as much as you would have for US steel. The companies that save on Chinese steel are just passing on the externalities to their customers.
Chinese steel is of such low quality that, after wastage is accounted for, you essentially end up paying just as much as you would have for US steel. The companies that save on Chinese steel are just passing on the externalities to their customers.
Hmm...let's see. I know absolutely nothing about the quality of US-vs-Chinese steel but, assuming everything you say is true, that means companies buying steel are perfectly fine buying low quality steel. And they will be perfectly fine buying low quality steel, regardless of where the supplier is located. So, what will inevitably follow is that US steel manufacturers will lower the quality of their steel to match Chinese's, while keeping the price high. The result - US consumers paying more for the same shitty quality steel.
Simply doing an environmental assessment for the necessary processing facilities will take years, that stuff is terrible to work with, both the tailings and the required processing to extract rare earth elements.
On the upside, doing so properly could conceivably result in an actual reduction in waste just lying around.
On the upside, doing so properly could conceivably result in an actual reduction in waste just lying around.
I don't get it, what is the purpose of these elements? Is this jewellery or what?
They have a wide variety of uses. Big ones include some varieties of batteries, magnets (NdFeB, SmCo), phosphors, doped fiber optical amplifiers (very important for global fiber optic networks), Nd-YAG lasers, catalysts for oil processing, contrast agents for MRI (gadolinium). There's even a drug for osteoporosis containing lanthanum.
Some rare earths have extraordinarily high thermal neutron capture cross sections, in the millions of barns. Gadolinium is used as a "burnable absorber" in some nuclear reactors, particularly naval reactors: as the fuel is consumed, the absorber also burns down, reducing the reactivity change.
Some rare earths have extraordinarily high thermal neutron capture cross sections, in the millions of barns. Gadolinium is used as a "burnable absorber" in some nuclear reactors, particularly naval reactors: as the fuel is consumed, the absorber also burns down, reducing the reactivity change.
Thanks. I should have looked it up beforehand but the article definitely made me feel frustrated.