Italy's privacy regulator goes after DeepSeek(politico.eu)
politico.eu
Italy's privacy regulator goes after DeepSeek
https://www.politico.eu/article/italys-privacy-regulator-goes-after-deepseek/
96 comments
Unfortunately, while more accurate, a headline like “data protection arm of Italian gov sends polite disclosure requests to DeepSeek, as per their purview” isn’t very dramatic :)
EU doing what it knows best
Protecting their citizens
they’ll only be truly safe when their gdp per capita is a full half of the US
GDP hasn't been a good metric for a good 50 years now. It's good when your country burns coals and shits out steel, not much more. High gdp for sure, higher salaries for sure, everything needed to survive is twice as expensive and you have 0 social safety net.
Meanwhile in the US
- mortgage are above 7%, twice as high as in Europe
- min wage is bellow the Polish min wage, half the German min wage
- life expectancy is going down, 4 years under the EU 27 average, 6 years less than France
- wealth and income inequalities are worse than pretty much any EU country: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/economic-inequality-gini-...
- parental leaves, paid vacations, unions, &c. are either optional or frowned upon
- pensioner poverty is 2x+ more than in the EU: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/12/02/which-...
Meanwhile in the US
- mortgage are above 7%, twice as high as in Europe
- min wage is bellow the Polish min wage, half the German min wage
- life expectancy is going down, 4 years under the EU 27 average, 6 years less than France
- wealth and income inequalities are worse than pretty much any EU country: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/economic-inequality-gini-...
- parental leaves, paid vacations, unions, &c. are either optional or frowned upon
- pensioner poverty is 2x+ more than in the EU: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/12/02/which-...
1. EU barely has 30 year fixed rates - of course rates will be higher for a much riskier loan to counterparty.
2. Yes true, the minimum wage in Poland is 13 cents higher than the US. Fewer than 1% of US income earners are paid the federal minimum wage. In Poland, ~15% of income earners are paid the minimum wage.
3. Yes our life expectancy is bad - although better when you do demographic control, we have a problem with obesity and easy access to guns causing suicide.
4-6. sorry but relative wealth measures are not effective for deciding how affluent a society is. our ‘pensioners’ in poverty are only in poverty relative to the very high median earnings in the US. They could take their money to the EU and spend better than many of those other retirees.
2. Yes true, the minimum wage in Poland is 13 cents higher than the US. Fewer than 1% of US income earners are paid the federal minimum wage. In Poland, ~15% of income earners are paid the minimum wage.
3. Yes our life expectancy is bad - although better when you do demographic control, we have a problem with obesity and easy access to guns causing suicide.
4-6. sorry but relative wealth measures are not effective for deciding how affluent a society is. our ‘pensioners’ in poverty are only in poverty relative to the very high median earnings in the US. They could take their money to the EU and spend better than many of those other retirees.
No worries until then we will have our great wall of Europe, as US grows to distaste any remaining allies.
No distaste for Europe, I just feel mildly sorry for what you are inflicting on yourself.
The US has and will come to your defense, but we can’t defend you all from self-inflicted wealth-destroying policies.
The US has and will come to your defense, but we can’t defend you all from self-inflicted wealth-destroying policies.
> The US has and will come to your defense
While threatening tariffs and a hostile takeover of Greenland?
While threatening tariffs and a hostile takeover of Greenland?
1. Yes, we are quite literally defending you while doing those things right now.
2. Trump has bad policies yes, although I hadn’t heard anything about an actual military takeover of Greenland.
3. It’s not as if EU doesn’t have tariffs on the Us already, for instance you all are very protective of the auto industry as well as your domestic farmers, just to name a few. I think tariffs are bad policy on both sides of the atlantic
2. Trump has bad policies yes, although I hadn’t heard anything about an actual military takeover of Greenland.
3. It’s not as if EU doesn’t have tariffs on the Us already, for instance you all are very protective of the auto industry as well as your domestic farmers, just to name a few. I think tariffs are bad policy on both sides of the atlantic
> Yes, we are quite literally defending you while doing those things
Don't forget to register for LA's olympic games you might win the mental gymnastic gold
Don't forget to register for LA's olympic games you might win the mental gymnastic gold
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-...
we are literally not even on the same continent. france and many others can’t be bothered to spend hardly anything, yet somehow we are terrible allies
we are literally not even on the same continent. france and many others can’t be bothered to spend hardly anything, yet somehow we are terrible allies
Twice the economy, twice the investment. I fail to see your point, that's exactly how alliance are supposed to work
> france and many others can’t be bothered to spend hardly anything
Hardly anything besides propping up 70% of the EU
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg
Also even if you sent 100% of the money collected through tariffs back to the EU through Ukraine, what's the point we're back to square one with extra steps in the middle... The US are serving their own interests, it's totally fine, you don't have to pretend they're sacrificing themselves for the greater good of humanity.
> france and many others can’t be bothered to spend hardly anything
Hardly anything besides propping up 70% of the EU
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg
Also even if you sent 100% of the money collected through tariffs back to the EU through Ukraine, what's the point we're back to square one with extra steps in the middle... The US are serving their own interests, it's totally fine, you don't have to pretend they're sacrificing themselves for the greater good of humanity.
That happened during the Biden administration though, now the situation has changed quite drastically
I love (geo)political takes on HN. Always so naive.
yeah so naive to suggest that the US and EU are allies or that tariffs are bad policy, great contribution to the discussion
Privacy is now a self-inflicted wealth-destroying policy.
I have no problem with that, except it is pure bollocks.
*Fabulously wealthy people do exist here, you know.
*Fabulously wealthy people do exist here, you know.
Also, the literal advertisement tagline for Apple, one of the wealthiest company in the world, is about how their product "preserve privacy"... so I doubt that privacy is wealth-destroying
Who cares? GDP was never designed to be used as a measure of welfare, in fact this use case was explicitly discouraged.
We need a better metric that captures welfare and general life satisfaction. That's the only metric that matters in my world view.
We need a better metric that captures welfare and general life satisfaction. That's the only metric that matters in my world view.
[deleted]
I prefer to be a citizen in the EU than in the US... better laws, more holidays, better healthcare, better food, etc
Those people who used to throw away the plastic caps are now in big trouble.
Fun fact, before the law, in many places in Europe it was encouraged to separate them before putting them in the trash bin.
Fun fact, before the law, in many places in Europe it was encouraged to separate them before putting them in the trash bin.
yah, so the compacting machines wouldn't pop into half-full bottles all the time yuck. and now the caps are connected to the bottle. which is a Good Thing (TM)
GDPR is quite a sensible set of rules to be honest, if you want to understand the basics most of it comes down to
1) have a person you can contact in an organisation about your data
2) store people’s personal information as securely as if it’s credit card data
3) you have to be clear about what you’re doing with data from people in the EU and not store said data on servers outside the EU.
All seems reasonable to me!
1) have a person you can contact in an organisation about your data
2) store people’s personal information as securely as if it’s credit card data
3) you have to be clear about what you’re doing with data from people in the EU and not store said data on servers outside the EU.
All seems reasonable to me!
US websites have been quite successful in fearmongering about it - either "oh no, the EU forced us to put this mess of annoying popups on our page" or "oh no, the EU forced us to block our own website from it"
While I'm not necessarily against GDPR and regulations, is undeniable that the regulatory landscape in Europe has been preventing innovation.
In fact it's tech market is predominantly dominated by US tech companies (and probably soon Chinese ones as well)
In fact it's tech market is predominantly dominated by US tech companies (and probably soon Chinese ones as well)
I'll try and spin it a different way -- What if the US and China had been unfairly taking advantage of their lax rules to bring innovation to the damage of their (and other countries') citizens, much like China has been unfairly exploiting its own lower standards of living and personal freedom to gain advantage in terms of manufacturing power against the US and Europe?
Ya cool, does this change the result? No.
Europe has no competitors to the US/Chinese tech giants and their citizens want to use technology like anybody else without a layer of bureaucracy preventing them from doing basic stuff.
I don't think European citizens have been forced to use Uber, Airbnb, Apple, Android, Facebook , WhatsApp and so on.
Europe has no competitors to the US/Chinese tech giants and their citizens want to use technology like anybody else without a layer of bureaucracy preventing them from doing basic stuff.
I don't think European citizens have been forced to use Uber, Airbnb, Apple, Android, Facebook , WhatsApp and so on.
The main food deliverers (Uber Eats clones) here are Dutch and Swedish. The place you can find someone's apartment to stay in temporarily is German. The Fediverse was invented here, in Germany. Ride-sharing companies are Estonian, German, and some others I don't remember.
There are no companies that rise meteorically, capture billions of users and then collapse if they can't monetize. There are just companies that quietly provide products and services users want. If that's considered a failure to you, then... okay? Signal is American, but Telegram is Russian. And you can just, you know, send a text message, without involving any third party (but both your phone companies can see it).
Oh and the b2b companies... like ASML and SWIFT.
There are no companies that rise meteorically, capture billions of users and then collapse if they can't monetize. There are just companies that quietly provide products and services users want. If that's considered a failure to you, then... okay? Signal is American, but Telegram is Russian. And you can just, you know, send a text message, without involving any third party (but both your phone companies can see it).
Oh and the b2b companies... like ASML and SWIFT.
You conveniently left our everything else I mention and those companies aren't really leading. Bolt for example has an edge because everywhere in Europe they're been killing Uber or limiting it hardly, and in some countries it's still the case.
In most cases those companies are knockoffs of American companies and you've yet to mention cases were Europe is actually leading the way (aside from some unique cases it doesn't happen regularly)
P.s. Russia is not part of Europe, you can safely leave it out (and yes they've plenty of competitors to american companies telegram, Yandex, VK etc. we can't say the same for Europe)
In most cases those companies are knockoffs of American companies and you've yet to mention cases were Europe is actually leading the way (aside from some unique cases it doesn't happen regularly)
P.s. Russia is not part of Europe, you can safely leave it out (and yes they've plenty of competitors to american companies telegram, Yandex, VK etc. we can't say the same for Europe)
If you're arguing that Europe killed Uber by making it follow common-sense regulations, you could just ask well argue that the USA killed Bolt by not.
Europeans simply do not see why they should try to "innovate" the American way: creating products that no one actually needs, and trying to get people to buy them anyway, often by killing the alternatives, which often results in more work, lower wages and higher prices for everyone. Europeans (other than AfD voters) would rather have a good enough society that stays good enough and doesn't decay.
Europeans simply do not see why they should try to "innovate" the American way: creating products that no one actually needs, and trying to get people to buy them anyway, often by killing the alternatives, which often results in more work, lower wages and higher prices for everyone. Europeans (other than AfD voters) would rather have a good enough society that stays good enough and doesn't decay.
It's not common sense regulation. It's anticompetitive regulations. You're happy to ride a taxi that often times takes a longer route to steal you a few extra euro? Are you happy that a taxi driver earn 500-600-700 euro a day when the avg salary in some EU countries is 1.5k a month? Are you happy that they don't take credit card payments and accept (often time) only cash? Are you happy that they evade taxes? Are you happy to go inside a car and don't know how long and how much your ride is going to cost? Are you happy that often times in touristic cities they refuse to use the meter?
You seem to know well what Europeans want but I bet you never got scammed by a taxi driver. Europeans like everybody want to simply pay less by having an open market that allows the best players to offer services without artificially inflating the price because that specific category some privilege.
If you claiming that Europe is not decaying probably you're living in the wrong Europe.
Europe is decaying faster than you think.
You seem to know well what Europeans want but I bet you never got scammed by a taxi driver. Europeans like everybody want to simply pay less by having an open market that allows the best players to offer services without artificially inflating the price because that specific category some privilege.
If you claiming that Europe is not decaying probably you're living in the wrong Europe.
Europe is decaying faster than you think.
Unfairly?
That’s sort of a weird way of putting it! Look at these immigrants to USA “unfairly” exploiting their own relative poverty and lower standards of living and entertainment to outcompete regular Americans! The tiger moms also “unfairly” use their higher standards of achievement for their kids to send them to get piano lessons and KUMON centers instead of hanging out with their friends in the park. It’s so unfair! We have to restrict their opportunities. Maybe have quotas at the universities…
It sounds a bit like that but on an international scale. I mean, one could argue it is far more unfair that they are behind in standards of living in the first place, what with all the Western imperialism and opium wars and British Raj. In India it is more unfair that Britain helped the East India company and engineered famines in the 1700s through 1940s through requisitioning grain, than the “unfairness” of Indian H1B visa workers “taking our jobs” now in a boomerang.
======
The only sense of “fairness” that makes any coherent sense here is that advanced countries should all cooperate to have minimum standards of living and human rights for everyone in them. Well, if we are going to cooperate on that, we may as well cooperate on non-proliferation of dangerous AI, as we successfully did with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and CFCs. But the upsides of AI are “too sweet” (to quote nuclear researchers) to actually do cooperation, so we do competition instead.
What is “unfair” about competition by exploiting lower standards of living or different culture, if you rule out cooperation?
That’s sort of a weird way of putting it! Look at these immigrants to USA “unfairly” exploiting their own relative poverty and lower standards of living and entertainment to outcompete regular Americans! The tiger moms also “unfairly” use their higher standards of achievement for their kids to send them to get piano lessons and KUMON centers instead of hanging out with their friends in the park. It’s so unfair! We have to restrict their opportunities. Maybe have quotas at the universities…
It sounds a bit like that but on an international scale. I mean, one could argue it is far more unfair that they are behind in standards of living in the first place, what with all the Western imperialism and opium wars and British Raj. In India it is more unfair that Britain helped the East India company and engineered famines in the 1700s through 1940s through requisitioning grain, than the “unfairness” of Indian H1B visa workers “taking our jobs” now in a boomerang.
======
The only sense of “fairness” that makes any coherent sense here is that advanced countries should all cooperate to have minimum standards of living and human rights for everyone in them. Well, if we are going to cooperate on that, we may as well cooperate on non-proliferation of dangerous AI, as we successfully did with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and CFCs. But the upsides of AI are “too sweet” (to quote nuclear researchers) to actually do cooperation, so we do competition instead.
What is “unfair” about competition by exploiting lower standards of living or different culture, if you rule out cooperation?
I was talking "fairness" from the point of view of the EU in this case, and it is the exact sense that you are delineating in your addendum at the end of the comment.
It is "unfair" that a country gets to run circles around me because it completely ignores things that I consider important rights that my citizens fought for -- sane working hours, right to have my data kept to myself, right to express discontent against the government
It is "unfair" that a country gets to run circles around me because it completely ignores things that I consider important rights that my citizens fought for -- sane working hours, right to have my data kept to myself, right to express discontent against the government
> sane working hours
So it's "unfair" when others work harder than us?!
> right to express discontent against the government
Last time I checked, the USA had "freer" speech than the EU.
So it's "unfair" when others work harder than us?!
> right to express discontent against the government
Last time I checked, the USA had "freer" speech than the EU.
It's unfair that in your country you decide nobody should have to work more than a certain amount, and then you make other people work more than that amount in a different country instead, yes.
Fascinating mindset!
So if a pupil in class decides to do more homework than the teacher required, they are being unfair towards the students that decided to do the bare minimum?
Very interesting way of thinking. I lived under communism and not even The Party was so radical: they encouraged performance, but then you still got paid the same as the lazy bums. :)
So if a pupil in class decides to do more homework than the teacher required, they are being unfair towards the students that decided to do the bare minimum?
Very interesting way of thinking. I lived under communism and not even The Party was so radical: they encouraged performance, but then you still got paid the same as the lazy bums. :)
It's unfair if the teacher gives lower grades to other students because of that student.
Oh, wow.
How about if we have two farmers with similar patches of land, one works it exactly to his needs, consuming everything he produces. The other one works as hard as he can, weekends included, with the surplus irrigating and buying tools and more land that make him extra productive, such as 10 years down the road he has amassed significant wealth while his neighbor is still living from harvest to harvest.
Still unfair?
How about if we have two farmers with similar patches of land, one works it exactly to his needs, consuming everything he produces. The other one works as hard as he can, weekends included, with the surplus irrigating and buying tools and more land that make him extra productive, such as 10 years down the road he has amassed significant wealth while his neighbor is still living from harvest to harvest.
Still unfair?
Ironic. The "right to express discontent against the government" seems to be being curtailed in the UK, and all of London is under CCTV surveillance, so maybe the EU should label its exports "unfair" as well?
https://x.com/thelouperez/status/1852126581872881711?s=46&t=...
And in any case, if your citizens fought for rights for themselves, and won those rights in their own country from their own government, why does that mean it is "unfair" that others in other countries leverage their lack of such rights or privileges for an advantage? Perhaps it is much MORE "unfair" that you are trying to impose your own framework and guarantees on others, who may not have the same per-capita wealth, or the same cultural values!
For example, the "third world" is complaining that you "first world people" cut down all your trees over centuries, used a lot of fossil fuels and built up your economies, and now you've put in place standards that you expect them to follow, so they can't build up their own economies. You want Brazil to preserve its rainforest, but you didn't preserve your own forests. This concept of "unfair" that you're espousing is quite dubious and hypocritical!
https://x.com/thelouperez/status/1852126581872881711?s=46&t=...
And in any case, if your citizens fought for rights for themselves, and won those rights in their own country from their own government, why does that mean it is "unfair" that others in other countries leverage their lack of such rights or privileges for an advantage? Perhaps it is much MORE "unfair" that you are trying to impose your own framework and guarantees on others, who may not have the same per-capita wealth, or the same cultural values!
For example, the "third world" is complaining that you "first world people" cut down all your trees over centuries, used a lot of fossil fuels and built up your economies, and now you've put in place standards that you expect them to follow, so they can't build up their own economies. You want Brazil to preserve its rainforest, but you didn't preserve your own forests. This concept of "unfair" that you're espousing is quite dubious and hypocritical!
If you don't think it's a good thing to recognize your own mistakes and try to warn others about them, then I don't think I have anything else to discuss.
Okay, you cut down all the forests in your country, and you "recognized your mistake", and try to warn others about them.
But you don't just try to warn, you try to impose rules on them which pull up the ladder behind you. It's like the big cartels of corporations that lobby the government for licenses and regulations, because they "recognized the mistakes" that can happen in an unregulated environment which allowed them to grow so quickly, and lo and behold, it becomes far more costly for anyone to disrupt them.
How convenient. Something might be a "good thing" but not an "unmitigated good". You can wax poetic cherrypicking only your good motives, but it turns out that your rhetoric also hides ulterior motives. Well, if we don't have anything to discuss, I guess you won't answer me on that point.
===
Or somewhat similar: When the USA bombed Laos, we were doing them and Vietnam a favor of course, because we recognized the mistakes of Communism and didn't want them to become Communist. Because the "Domino Theory" stated that allowing communism to spread would make mankind more miserable. So we had to nip it in the bud, even if it meant killing a lot of people. Same in South America etc. In this case, we hadn't even "realized the mistakes", but we were so sure we didn't want others to have a different economic system, that we were willing to kill them to prevent it.
Btw, they resisted, we withdrew, and to this day Vietnam has a Communist government, and is relatively prosperous. But in Cuba and North Korea we still keep crippling sanctions on them, to "prove" that their system is harming their people. Even if Cuba presents zero threat to us, we will continue total sanctions on the entire country. And we will welcome Cuban refugees with open arms, while refugees from Colombia etc are turned back, because the former can spread the word about what a terrible system they have in Cuba.
We can export the costs of our war on drugs, our industrial waste, etc. to Mexico and other countries, and "fairness" somehow is not mentioned. Anglophone countries can occupy India for centuries, cause famines and repress opportunities, but then say it's "unfair" that Indians with H1B visas are taking our jobs for lower wages. European empires could establish protectorates and extract resources, and then lament about the "immigrants" from those territories polluting their culture. There is no "fairness" in geopolitics, is my point. At bottom it's all self-interest and hypocrisy, dressed up in crude attempts at some kind of moralizing language that any decently-informed person would have massive cognitive dissonance swallowing.
Many people who blame Putin for annexing Crimea would then applaud Trump for annexing Canada or Greenland. They'd look past USA's invasions and occupations halfway around the world as "mistakes were made", but hyperfocus on another country's invasions of a neighbor or putting pressure on their neighbor. All I can say is, don't have a double standard. Every superpower pressures their neighbors, but since the 50s, only one country goes halfway around the world to bomb, invade and occupy faraway countries that present zero threat to it. And the government of that country is also the one moralizing to everyone else to stop doing what they're doing. So yeah, I take the moral arguments with a massive grain of salt.
But you don't just try to warn, you try to impose rules on them which pull up the ladder behind you. It's like the big cartels of corporations that lobby the government for licenses and regulations, because they "recognized the mistakes" that can happen in an unregulated environment which allowed them to grow so quickly, and lo and behold, it becomes far more costly for anyone to disrupt them.
How convenient. Something might be a "good thing" but not an "unmitigated good". You can wax poetic cherrypicking only your good motives, but it turns out that your rhetoric also hides ulterior motives. Well, if we don't have anything to discuss, I guess you won't answer me on that point.
===
Or somewhat similar: When the USA bombed Laos, we were doing them and Vietnam a favor of course, because we recognized the mistakes of Communism and didn't want them to become Communist. Because the "Domino Theory" stated that allowing communism to spread would make mankind more miserable. So we had to nip it in the bud, even if it meant killing a lot of people. Same in South America etc. In this case, we hadn't even "realized the mistakes", but we were so sure we didn't want others to have a different economic system, that we were willing to kill them to prevent it.
Btw, they resisted, we withdrew, and to this day Vietnam has a Communist government, and is relatively prosperous. But in Cuba and North Korea we still keep crippling sanctions on them, to "prove" that their system is harming their people. Even if Cuba presents zero threat to us, we will continue total sanctions on the entire country. And we will welcome Cuban refugees with open arms, while refugees from Colombia etc are turned back, because the former can spread the word about what a terrible system they have in Cuba.
We can export the costs of our war on drugs, our industrial waste, etc. to Mexico and other countries, and "fairness" somehow is not mentioned. Anglophone countries can occupy India for centuries, cause famines and repress opportunities, but then say it's "unfair" that Indians with H1B visas are taking our jobs for lower wages. European empires could establish protectorates and extract resources, and then lament about the "immigrants" from those territories polluting their culture. There is no "fairness" in geopolitics, is my point. At bottom it's all self-interest and hypocrisy, dressed up in crude attempts at some kind of moralizing language that any decently-informed person would have massive cognitive dissonance swallowing.
Many people who blame Putin for annexing Crimea would then applaud Trump for annexing Canada or Greenland. They'd look past USA's invasions and occupations halfway around the world as "mistakes were made", but hyperfocus on another country's invasions of a neighbor or putting pressure on their neighbor. All I can say is, don't have a double standard. Every superpower pressures their neighbors, but since the 50s, only one country goes halfway around the world to bomb, invade and occupy faraway countries that present zero threat to it. And the government of that country is also the one moralizing to everyone else to stop doing what they're doing. So yeah, I take the moral arguments with a massive grain of salt.
While companies will always follow the path of least resistance and prefer as little regulation as possible to make money without a lot of headaches, most people will prefer their privacy be respected and their data not sold-off without their approval or used in undocumented ways, even if it leads to less innovation in the corporate landscape.
A bit like a helmet prevents the pavement innovating your skull.
There are countries that decided against compulsory helmet laws for bikers on the basis that biking health benefits outweigh the risks.
When you raise barriers to an activity, even if for a good cause, you may end up losing more than you gain.
When you raise barriers to an activity, even if for a good cause, you may end up losing more than you gain.
The analogy was about motorcycle helmets, so no.
The country with by far the highest number of people riding a bike (The Netherlands) does not have any helmet rules.
But the number of incidents with head injuries is increasing because more (elderly) people are riding e-bikes for longer than they would have a normal bike.
As reaction times slow with age this is not a great combo with a faster bike which is a cause to more incidents.
There is a big push currently for getting helmet rules adopted similar to how Denmark did this
There is a big push currently for getting helmet rules adopted similar to how Denmark did this
What do you consider innovation? Was a certain regulation the reason DeepSeek-R1 didn't happen in Europe?
Regulation is only a small part of the story. Keep in mind that GDPR was implemented in 2018, long after Europe lost the tech battle.
The lack of a unified (financial) service sector and hence a very weak and fragmented private capital market (-> VC ecosystem) is a bigger problem. Most funding is from risk-averse banks and slow-moving governments.
Many EU based startups move to silicon valley for access to financing.
The lack of a unified (financial) service sector and hence a very weak and fragmented private capital market (-> VC ecosystem) is a bigger problem. Most funding is from risk-averse banks and slow-moving governments.
Many EU based startups move to silicon valley for access to financing.
There are other regulations making entrepreneurship quasi-impossible in the EU, not just GDPR.
For example employment laws are thought for big, ossified companies, not lean and agile startups.
For example employment laws are thought for big, ossified companies, not lean and agile startups.
That is partly true, though not equally so in every country (Denmark is a positive example - as usual). Note that this kind of regulation is done on the national level and isn't strictly related to EU membership.
On the other hand, salaries in the EU are significantly lower and it is a lot easier to find engineers.
Even as a person who dislikes the overregulation it is not totally clear to me that the net status of the labour market is what makes entrepeneurship as impossible as you claim, despite the obvious negative effect of overregulation.
If that was the main problem I would expect a "Silicon Valley" of Europe to form in Denmark or one of the other smaller states that have relatively flexible labour markets, but we are not really seeing that, as they are still hampered by a lack of funding.
Instead we see that the biggest startup hubs are in Berlin and Paris, probably more related to network effects and national (financial) market size then to particularly attractive regulation, for which those places are not known.
On the other hand, salaries in the EU are significantly lower and it is a lot easier to find engineers.
Even as a person who dislikes the overregulation it is not totally clear to me that the net status of the labour market is what makes entrepeneurship as impossible as you claim, despite the obvious negative effect of overregulation.
If that was the main problem I would expect a "Silicon Valley" of Europe to form in Denmark or one of the other smaller states that have relatively flexible labour markets, but we are not really seeing that, as they are still hampered by a lack of funding.
Instead we see that the biggest startup hubs are in Berlin and Paris, probably more related to network effects and national (financial) market size then to particularly attractive regulation, for which those places are not known.
4. have a system for tracking every single dataset you have lying around including ones that might just be for experiments and in a different format and purge people who have requested to be forgotten or be fined 10s of thousands of dollars
5. frequent new legal interpretations that become the basis of enforcement and then you have to rearchitect the whole way you were handling data
always good to impose onerous rules on R&D when you are critically losing the R&D and capital race
5. frequent new legal interpretations that become the basis of enforcement and then you have to rearchitect the whole way you were handling data
always good to impose onerous rules on R&D when you are critically losing the R&D and capital race
4. If it is personal data, you have to know where they came from, where they are stored and why. If you don't want to do that, then invest the minimal effort it takes to anonymize them during ingestion and then you can do whatever you want with them.
5. Now that is just false, or you have some really bad architects, if you are so sensitive to new legal interpretation (which there haven't been any significant ones)
5. Now that is just false, or you have some really bad architects, if you are so sensitive to new legal interpretation (which there haven't been any significant ones)
Why does everything needs to be pro EU or anti EU. Yes, consumer privacy is more protected in EU. And yes it has directly caused EU R&D budget to become significantly smaller. And yes it has led to ad revenue decrease and created more problem for small companies who can't use non targeted ad.
If you are arguing against any of these, for which there are lot of data I think you are not up for discussion.
If you are arguing against any of these, for which there are lot of data I think you are not up for discussion.
>And yes it has directly caused EU R&D budget to become significantly smaller.
Source?
Source?
Where is the GP taking a pro-EU or anti-EU stance? Where are they arguing against "ad revenue decrease" which "created more problem for small companies", or the impact of GDPR on the EU R&D budget?
[deleted]
1. all text data is personal data so yeah you can’t anonymize it, you need to have. a central metadata tracking of all datasets - this is a more challenging problem than it appears from on high.
2. i don’t see how you can look at, for instance, random EU jurisdictions not allowing Google Fonts on your website due to GDPR ( but only some jurisdictions and only years after the law was passed) and see that as inconsistent and moving target enforcement - and that is just one well known example of many many many
2. i don’t see how you can look at, for instance, random EU jurisdictions not allowing Google Fonts on your website due to GDPR ( but only some jurisdictions and only years after the law was passed) and see that as inconsistent and moving target enforcement - and that is just one well known example of many many many
> all text data is personal data
Where did you get that from lol
Where did you get that from lol
Quote me the exact part because I don't think we're reading the same text
Well, yes.
Handle PII as you would handle live ammo. Always know where you store it. Don't toss it randomly. Don't experiment with it; neutralize it first!
Use it to hit particular targets, and never shoot it at random directions.
Handle PII as you would handle live ammo. Always know where you store it. Don't toss it randomly. Don't experiment with it; neutralize it first!
Use it to hit particular targets, and never shoot it at random directions.
> Handle PII as you would handle live ammo.
But thing is, PII is not "live ammo". Artificially designating it so simply raises the cost of working with it. Doing that designation through an amazingly dumb law just makes EU Internet startups unfeasible. Meanwhile, US and Chinese startups flourish since they don't have this limitation.
Self-own, really.
But thing is, PII is not "live ammo". Artificially designating it so simply raises the cost of working with it. Doing that designation through an amazingly dumb law just makes EU Internet startups unfeasible. Meanwhile, US and Chinese startups flourish since they don't have this limitation.
Self-own, really.
I worked for a number of American companies, not beholden to also serve EU markers. They still did not demonstrate any cavalier attitudes towards PII though. Nobody wants to be the subject of some data leak front-page story.
Of course not, but there is a huge difference between market-demanded standards and quality and government-mandated ones. In more ways than one: cost, difficulty of implementation, UX, etc.
A real, practical example is that US web startups do not have to annoy their US users with cookie banners for simply using Google Analytics on their website - like the EU ones must. Underneath, the implementation and PII data protections are exactly the same, but the UX is night and day.
A real, practical example is that US web startups do not have to annoy their US users with cookie banners for simply using Google Analytics on their website - like the EU ones must. Underneath, the implementation and PII data protections are exactly the same, but the UX is night and day.
Yes. You should have a system for tracking every single dataset containing personal data: that data does not belong to you. You are just its steward.
You should have had such a system even before GDPR came into existence, but after it did? Your organization's lack of organization is not the legislator's problem.
You should have had such a system even before GDPR came into existence, but after it did? Your organization's lack of organization is not the legislator's problem.
I am describing a higher level of compliance than like 95% of shops that have data do in practice
Even this website you are commenting on isn’t GDPR compliant lol, they won’t delete your text if you request.
Even this website you are commenting on isn’t GDPR compliant lol, they won’t delete your text if you request.
It sounds like 95% of shops - of shops you know well enough to have an opinion about - should get their shit together, then. Why should people tolerate their sloppiness?
Not deleting texts does not breach gdpr rules.
Gdpr is about personal data, not anonymous (you can always put your real name, if you want) texts. Nor does hn do any tracking.
Try actually looking at the gdpr, easily findable [even using google search] - it's not what you seem to believe it is.
Gdpr is about personal data, not anonymous (you can always put your real name, if you want) texts. Nor does hn do any tracking.
Try actually looking at the gdpr, easily findable [even using google search] - it's not what you seem to believe it is.
Enforcing data privacy laws? Sounds good to most citizens, 99% of which are not the entrepreneurs having to deal with the regulations.
what percentage of EU citizens don’t use goods or services?
EU should maybe focus on like not having titled nobility and monarchy anymore and actual estate taxation
EU should maybe focus on like not having titled nobility and monarchy anymore and actual estate taxation
> EU should maybe focus on like not having titled nobility and monarchy
In Europe we have titles for show, in the US you don't have the titles but you still have the lords
In Europe we have titles for show, in the US you don't have the titles but you still have the lords
The "lords" in US (not all, but the great majority) are self-made and in the process of making themselves they created significantly more value for the society, which ended up benefitting most of us.
The titles in EU are inherited or bought with inherited money.
The titles in EU are inherited or bought with inherited money.
With all due respect, your idea of Europe seems to be about a 100 years out of date and based on period dramas.
Actually my idea of Europe is based on living in it (Eastern side, to be precise) and building and running startups here.
My idea of US is based on living and working there (a while ago though) and (for the last 20+ years) watching powerlessly how more and more of the products and services I interact with and use every day are designed there (and often build in China) while the EU is becoming less and less relevant.
My idea of US is based on living and working there (a while ago though) and (for the last 20+ years) watching powerlessly how more and more of the products and services I interact with and use every day are designed there (and often build in China) while the EU is becoming less and less relevant.
Their idea of USA seems even more out of date, and based on self-serving capitalist myths.
Are you seriously implying Donald Trump is self made? Seriously?
Of course not, not every single US billionaire is self made, just the great majority of them.
One singular anecdote doesn’t say much about the overall state of things. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would claim in present day that Donald Trump became wealthy without receiving significant financial help/inheritance from his family.Of course there will be some people who are rich due to the wealth they inherited from their parents, that number will not be zero anywhere.
There are multiple studies on this, but they all seem to converge on the number of around 80% of current millionaires in the US being first generation/self-made[0]. That is, the ones who didn’t receive an inheritance from their parents or other family members.
It also shows some other interesting stats, such as “only 8% of those in the study attended prestigious private schools, with 62% attending state schools.”
0. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-les...
There are multiple studies on this, but they all seem to converge on the number of around 80% of current millionaires in the US being first generation/self-made[0]. That is, the ones who didn’t receive an inheritance from their parents or other family members.
It also shows some other interesting stats, such as “only 8% of those in the study attended prestigious private schools, with 62% attending state schools.”
0. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-les...
In Europe, you have ultrawealthy families that have been wealthy for centuries - from the actual nobility days.
The US doesn’t really have that at all, although our estate tax could certainly be much higher but it is still higher than in practice in Europe.
The US doesn’t really have that at all, although our estate tax could certainly be much higher but it is still higher than in practice in Europe.
This is a bit of a myth, most countries in Europe have better social mobility then the US, where people of different social classes are quite segregated. (Though as always, there is a lot of variation between countries.)
> In Europe, you have ultrawealthy families that have been wealthy for centuries - from the actual nobility days.
> The US doesn’t really have that at all
Of course, my local pub is older than your country, generational wealth isn't a thing in the US, as is generational anything
What you have is multi billionaires buying their way into politics and getting in the government while no one ever voted for them
> The US doesn’t really have that at all
Of course, my local pub is older than your country, generational wealth isn't a thing in the US, as is generational anything
What you have is multi billionaires buying their way into politics and getting in the government while no one ever voted for them
This is such a weird stereotype. The US was declared in 1776. Obviously it has generational wealth. Unless you think everybody lives to be 300 years old.
Not sure what you're on about with the second statement, but for the first one:
> In 2023, 92% of the surveyed individuals used internet and 70% bought or ordered products or services online in the 12 months preceding the survey.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
> In 2023, 92% of the surveyed individuals used internet and 70% bought or ordered products or services online in the 12 months preceding the survey.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
This is the Italian data protection authority acting on a report from an Italian consumer group. The EU doesn't seem involved in this particular inquiry.
sure because that is how the gdpr is implemented with national enforcement but they still have to submit draft decisions to the gdpr cooperation mechanism and get consensus and the EDPB gets final say. it is very much an EU/EEA process
Even better then. I’m glad they did that.
Considering EU is so far behind on AI and tech as a whole, I hope they see this an opportunity to develop something of their own with better data privacy or whatever suits their boat(I don't know how though). I am really rooting for EU and their economy to bounce back. The world desperately needs a balance from all sides.
If anything, this revealed they aren’t actually that much behind. It’s just that the US’ lead is completely inflated and that the business models they dreamt of were finicky at best.
> Italy's data protection authority is asking Chinese artificial intelligence startup DeepSeek for formal responses on how it handles Italians' data when they use its AI chatbot app.
> The authority known as the Garante on Tuesday said it sent DeepSeek requests to disclose what personal data it collects, where it comes from, how it’s used, what legal basis it has to process that data under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and whether that data is stored on servers in China.