Ask HN: If GDPR is enforced, could we just cut the transatlantic cables? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: If GDPR is enforced, could we just cut the transatlantic cables?

3 pointsTekMol10 comments

Looks like the GDPR implies that no tcp packets are allowed to travel to the US, even if the user gives their consent.

That's how I read the recent rulings that using fonts, CDNs, analytics from US companies is illegal in Europe. Because all infrastructure in the US is under control of the US government.

Under this interpretation of the GDPR, what legal ways are left to send tcp packets from Europe to the US?

View on HN

I'm from Europe. Until the US will spy on all (US citizens blindly obey and let them do whatever they want, in China it's the government in the US the companies and the government). Cut those cables today. Europe will be connected with Asia and Africa, 2/3 of the world.

I agree, isolate Europe and let them connect with Africa, which I'm sure many Europeans really care about.

Also, let's cut the umbilical cord on military aid and let you fight your own wars for once.

This isn't my understanding of GDPR. I'm also not familiar with any rulings which has done this. Not really seeing anything in a quick search.

I'm not in Europe. From my personal understanding of GDPR I like the legislation and what it does for the people. IT specifically exempts people and residential and government from the enforcement. So this is corporate regulations saying corporations can't transfer personal data out of europe.

Do you have a problem with this? If so, what are you doing with my personal data? Tell me more? I would like to know who are threats to my personal data.

This website we are using, Hacker News, is making your (and my) computer send data packets to the USA. My understanding is that this is not in line with the GDPR. I like to talk to you. So yes, I have a problem if this communication channel gets closed.

I have never provided hacker news my personal data. They aren't transferring the not-personal-data anywhere.

There might be specific exceptions (especially for things like police) but otherwise local and national governments are bound by the GDPR the same as corporations.

Would this make those distracting cookie popups go away?

Not in Europe. As in Europe, companies still would have to ask for permission to process the users data.

I'm not in Europe. I can't see how such a horrible user hostile thing is forced on me by bureaucrats even if I don't live there.

The value of privacy in regards to cookies is nuanced and hard to explain. The bureaucrats pushed a policy that is beneficial for privacy, but is user hostile.

Companies benefit by complying with the law and then being able to blame the law creating a public image problem for the law and a hedge against future similar laws (remember the last one? it was bad right).

This is the compromise between surveillance capitalism and privacy.

A more important question is why wasn't there a law banning tracking cookies/other bad behavior (as opposed to cookies used to run the website).

You think it's the bureaucrats pushing the behavior on you, but it's the companies that won't give up their tracking cookies who have influence on the bureaucrats that result in the behavior you see.

Your attribution of the problem to the bureaucrats rather than the companies that used cookies in such a way that motivated the pop up is rewarding companies for bad behavior, which ironically also prevents bureaucrats from doing a better job because when the bureaucrats are blamed for the compromise between capitalist owners and private citizens, it diminishes their power/mandate to curb capitalist power (which is fundamentally the purpose of GDPR).

Who is more evil, the bureaucrats or the companies violating privacy. If the companies did not violate privacy, would we have to deal with cookie pop ups?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com