If easy competition is being paid for through shady practices, then it should never have been that easy. It’s a no-brainer that a large, established business has certain advantages over up-and-comers; GDPR didn’t make that the case either. It’s easier for a large, rich company to do almost anything, including respecting our privacy as enforced by regulation or law.
You don't have to be doing anything shady with data for the GDPR to be a threat to you and your business. You can be collecting a bare minimum of data that you only use with the purest of intentions and still be in violation of the law and subject to its penalties.
Just asking for an email that will literally be used for nothing but to send a registration confirmation - you know, to sign up users, the same way we've been doing forever - puts you in its compliance crosshairs. You're now legally liable for a whole raft of additional compliance measures that probably necessitate paying a lawyer a decent chunk of change to make sure you're above board with. Your "MVP" has now expanded from "here's a simple idea I cranked out this weekend" to "here's a simple idea and a legal contract and audit trails that prove consent and an obligation to exfil data from my database on demand in perpetuity and data portability endpoints and data exchange contracts with every API provider I use and my database has to be encrypted at rest and highly redundant and I have to set up regular vulnerability scans and if I want to back up my database to a non-EU datacenter I have to obtain consent from all my users first and a bunch of additional requirements that possibly make it illegal to not age out my Apache access logs and why am I doing this at all again?"
GDPR significantly increases the friction for moving new ideas from concept to product, even if there is absolutely zero nefarious happening in the product. If it only made life hard on the people engaged in shady practices, there'd be a lot less concern over it, but that's just not the case. It doesn't just punish the misuse of data, it punishes the lack of proactive compliance to a set of criteria which are frankly beyond many hobbyists.
Some see this as a good thing. But I think that it's also fair to guess that it's going to cause otherwise good and benign ideas, products, and even entire companies to die on the vine as a result.
I would personally consider “not knowing where users’ data is, or being able to tell them” to be a nefarious act in itself.
For better or worse, entrepreneurs only have their peers to blame for this, the peers who fucked up so badly that the government felt it had to step in.
In a jurisdiction. GDPR means a dollar can buy more MVPs outside Europe than inside. Keep in mind that this has no bearing on the privacy stance of the ultimate product. Just the fixed cost of iteration.
I hope it does. Europe, however, has a unique penchant for unnecessary bureaucracy. Nobody is complaining about GDPR’s requirements. It’s the ancillary administration which is destructive.
Companies have had years in which they were receiving warnings and recommendations for best practices - they ignored them. This is the piper coming with the bill.
I'm not saying "hobbyists shouldn't have to comply with the law", I'm saying "the law is disproportionately punitive to hobbyists in terms of burden imposed".
"Hey, I need to be able to query and delete data" is not a huge cognitive overhead when creating a MVP.
You have to be able to demonstrate audit trails of consent, including what the user consented to and when. You have to be able to demonstrate audit trails proving deletion requests. You have to have audit trails of who has ever accessed this data. You have to have a means to exclude pieces of your dataset from aggregate statistics on demand. Also, your audit trails can't contain PII because then your audit trails are in violation of the deletion requests, so you have to have mechanisms of proving that you processed deletion requests without actually identifying the data processed. You're also now obligated to respond to data inquiries in perpetuity, even to people for whom you have no data. Article 32 appears to impose a requirement for encryption at rest, high availability, disaster recovery, and regular penetration testing - all good things, to be sure, but completely impractical for the small hobbyist. Your "querying and deleting" is, by the letter of the law, now required to be a full-blown production-ready architecture with a business's worth of documentation.
And all because you wanted an email address to keep your login form from getting spammed?
I realize that in practicality, this is unlikely to ever be leveraged in any significant scope against most hobbyists, but the law is merciless and it is foolish to assume that you won't be caught in its crosshairs just because you weren't its intended target.
No, all this because companies were selling your email address to spammers.
Also, your reading of the law seems at odds with most other readings I've seen. I'm sure it will come down to a lawyer - but I'm also sure that hobby programmer who take reasonable steps won't ever be in the crosshairs of the EU.
You have to tell the user why you are collecting it, what it will be used for and for how long you will retain it.
If you are just using as a login and to confirm the e-mail is valid, there's not much else you have to do.
Oh - you want to use that e-mail for lots of other things, some of which aren't central to the running of the service the user's signing up for? Then yes, you have to document and enumerate those reasons and ask the user if they are OK with that.
Just saying "I'm using your email for signups" doesn't make you compliant. If it did then I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.
Other than to try and make the regulations seem more baroque than they are.
And also including doing creepy things with our private data that stay just on the right side of the law.