Some of the early results we are seeing from GDPR make one question how ‘sensible’ it really is.
In this case the operator's usage of the word troll to describe what happened is telling. Anyone can send any kind of threatening letter they want, and they are free to report you for non-compliance, but that doesn't mean any action will be taken against you, let alone actual fines.
IANAL, but IMHO the chances of any solo forum operator being sanctioned by EU regulators is effectively nil—the purpose of the law is specifically to address usage of personal data, not old-school off-the-shelf forums and other one-off websites where the scope of the data is essentially the core of the service itself.
You can argue the only thing that matters is the end result, but I'm not sure there's any way to write meaningful privacy regulation that will not generate a huge wave of FUD, especially with the traditional SV stance that we ought by default to have carte blanche to monetize user data in any way that's effective.
No, but it is a strong signal of my critique: That the EU is a 900 pound gorilla and that is a large part of the problem here. Small operators will, in fact, be impacted by this because they don't have the resources -- including time -- to cope with this and this will cause substantial fallout. Suggesting that "The details of the law are sensible" is not a rebuttal of the cincerns I am expressing.
GDPR is also quite weak in this regard as it has few new additions: explicit consent (thanks to snowden exposing prism and despite the largest lobbying campaign against it orchestrated by silicon valley[1]), max possible fine increased so actor like google and facebook would stop paying 150,000€ fines right and left while laughing in the face of European laws, and class actions.
Again it's only thanks to snowden revelations that the GDPR weakening personal data protection was overturned.
The real change that matters is that now the law can and will apply.
So far there have been a few people just giving up before the regulators get involved, which seems like a massive over reaction.
What a fucking stupid thing to say.
GDPR requires a few things: don't collect too much data; be honest about why you're collecting it; allow corrections; in some situations allow deletion.
This isn't a a boot crushing people.
It's perhaps more poetic than is the norm here. That doesn't make it a fucking stupid thing to say.
The reality is that since we don't yet know how this will play out, those who are risk averse, whether by personality or positioning (because some people just can't afford to take risks), will tend to flee from what could be a crushing burden. Furthermore, if someone is essentially in survival mode and can't spare the time and energy to read the GDPR and become confident they know how to deal with it, then just needing to read it and adapt can be a de facto crushing burden without any fines being levied.
Would you please stop going on tilt like this on HN? You know we ban people for commenting this way.