Ironically... reported by a source that bans us Europeans because they can't stop breaking GDPR. -_-
Any other source for this news?
Any other source for this news?
IMO that's not really "state of the art," and the more countries / provinces / municipalities that pass their own convoluted regulations the more risk it puts me under as a small business owner.
The net result is only huge companies have any hope of being able to afford the compliance costs with all of this bullshit.
The regulation is definitely state-of-the-art in terms of end user privacy, even if some companies don't have a state-of-the-art response to the challenges it poses.
It doesn't.
Obey the law or stop serving the European market, it's that simple.
It is true that MEPs lack the right of initiative, as in, they can't introduce laws, only the commission can. I do see this as a major democratic deficiency of the EU system. But there are some valid reasons why this is the case, which is way too off topic to go in to here.
But I was referring to WaPo, not Google.
I just checked and they even differentiate between paying less with some tracking and paying more for no tracking.
Merely doing this is not sufficient for GDPR compliance. The site also needs to be able to verify that they are not collecting and storing personal data beyond what is necessary to operate the site, and have the mechanisms in place to respond as such to regulators when they inquire. That's not free (in time or money), and some organizations have decided it isn't worth their while.
> allow access only to paying users
Free vs. paid is completely irrelevant to the GDPR.
> forbid access period
As someone else noted, that's what they are doing.
Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money.
WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking.
You think it's dead easy to respond to inquiries. What matters is what the regulators will believe.
Also, there's a lot of potential personal data involved in a web page hit that does not require any sort of tracker to obtain.
> Free vs paid is relevant if it's free with tracking vs paid. It's basically trying to manipulate the user into being tracked by making not beibg tracked cost money.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That is just your assumption that if you pay for something you won't be tracked. That's a bad assumption.
> WaPo is not forbidding access. If they had no access & paid, it would be fine. But they have free with tracking, cheap with tracking and a bit more expensive for no tracking.
Please point out where in the GDPR it refers to the cost of a service as having any relevance to a user's privacy rights. As with the above, you are making a whole lot of assumptions that aren't related to the law.