Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexsideris | Hacker News Reader

Hey there, Alex here. I completely understand where you are coming from.

I'm not an expert on laws, GDPR, when consent is needed, by whom, etc.

This is a side project that just started gaining a little bit of traction, and I'll certainly look into all the above.

However, the emails I add are publicly available, found on the internet. Not from some leaked database.

I also have prices high in order to keep spammers away and have a small handful of customers. I only have about twenty, and they are targeting different kind of startups.

View on HN

Work email addresses are considered personal data under GDPR

https://www.cognitivelaw.co.uk/gdpr-issues-do-work-emails-co...

However, b2b marking may be allowed under the GDPR. Form your link:

> Recital 47 of the GDPR states that “The processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest”. However, if you intend to rely on legitimate interest rather than consent, you will need to apply the following three-part test:

> 1. The purpose test: Are you processing personal data in pursuit of a legitimate interest?

> 2. The necessity test: Is the processing proportionate to achieving your aims?

> 3. The balancing test: Is your legitimate interest overridden by the rights of the person whose data you’re processing?

This is the correct answer for B2B emails in Europe.

> I'm not an expert on laws, GDPR, when consent is needed, by whom, etc.

> This is a side project that just started gaining a little bit of traction, and I'll certainly look into all the above.

You are selling a product without even knowing the legality of doing so?

Never heard of ask for forgiveness than for permission?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If you are, I applaud the subtlety.

For those nodding in agreement, ask yourself whether this line of thinking would hold up in court.

The GP has a point though. You can't operate a hotel without a license (AirBNB), you can't run a taxi business without a license (Uber), you can't keep other people's money like a bank without a license (PayPal). The list goes on...

Isn't this exactly survivorship bias?

Not exactly, but mine was a tongue-in-cheek comment anyway.

Move fast & break things at its best.

A small suggestion then: why not re-apply the same fundamental technologies and techniques, but to targeting public figures who are perhaps deserving of a little more scrutiny and contact than they're getting?

Rather than facilitating cold-calls to startup founders/leaders (which, let's face it, is generally a waste of their time and which they probably don't deserve that kind of punishment), why not expose the emails/contact-info of executives for bad actors in the marketplace, companies that have recently been sued or charged with crimes or civil complaints (by the SEC/FCC/etc.), companies that have had exposes written about them, etc.?

I'm not saying this will be a more profitable service or anything btw; in fact I'm quite certain it will have much less profit opportunity. But maybe this is something you can do to buy back some goodwill, to counterbalance the profit-seeking and cold-call/spam enabling side of this project.

Are you basically advocating facilitating the spamming of a certain section of "morally bad" individuals? I'm not sure this is the kind of advice that will lead to a less controversial business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com