I don't see why small organizations should get to be more careless with my personal data than anybody else. The value of my privacy doesn't change just because of the size of the company.
You don't have any privacy right to control data that belongs to other people and happens to relate to you. Privacy is about the state needing a warrant to enter your home and search it or to wiretap you. The idea it has anything to do with information you GIVE to websites by visiting them is a complete delusion.
The idea that you have the right to control eg. my opinions about you, just because they happen to concern you, is fundamentally contrary to the most basic right we all have: freedom of expression. The cornerstone of civil and political rights.
Unfortunately this is a really big "if" looking at typical businesses. They have no idea about how compliance should work and they also hire barely qualified people to marketing teams (often interns), who may accidentally add some privacy-breaking stuff. To prevent that they hire an external DPO and then deal with the paperwork for that DPO, who never visits the company onsite and never meets real people touching privacy topics.
So no, it's not a breeze, because there's generally no enough expertise and temptation to use American non-compliant MarTech is high.
One possible solution to that could be a pan-European registry of data processors with enough metadata to a) generate privacy policy, b) request correct consent, c) provide a compliance implementation checklist for non-trivial cases. There could be a small fee for adding services to this registry, but that would make maintaining compliance much easier.
Consider if wire fraud wasn't illegal before, but next week there is a new law coming into effect that makes it illegal. Of course all the companies who were doing wire fraud since before will struggle to be compliant, some might not even be feasible to run anymore if their core business becomes illegal.
Again, sounds like it works as expected, compliance for organizations who been ignorant for a long time is expected to be more cumbersome.
1. It is a problem for greenfield projects too. Not everyone has sufficient expertise to be fully compliant from the beginning. The accidental non-compliance is possible and there's usually a cost to prevent it.
2. It may work as expected from EU charter perspective, but current implementation is adding extra to an already high bureaucratic workload. My point is, it can be better than that.
Saying it's complicated because of missing experience or knowledge is like saying creating a CRUD application is difficult. Yes, it might be difficult if you've never done it before, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is complicated, just that you potentially lack experience.
Instead, I'd say it would be complicated if it's hard even if you have experience and knowledge about it. And for GDPR and safely storing data, it isn't difficult in a greenfield project if you have experience with it.
> but current implementation is adding extra to an already high bureaucratic workload
As someone who've helped SMEs become GDPR compliant, in terms of engineering, there really isn't a high bureaucratic workload unless you were already very careless with how you stored data. For the ones who considered how personal data was stored for more than half a second, becoming GDPR compliant was mostly about confirming things rather than having to shift things around.
Few companies though, had huge problems as they 1) were revenue dependent on selling user data or 2) never considered how they were storing or protecting personal data at all.
If you're speaking from the experience of those last companies, then again I think it works as expected.
> if you have experience with it
This must not be an expectation for any regulation that applies to business in general. Let’s say I just graduated from a college where I learned to be a plumber. I registered my firm and now want to acquire customers online, so I hire some local agency to build a website and an order form. You cannot realistically expect that I have any experience with GDPR or fully understand its requirements. It is the job of legislators to ensure that I can achieve compliance with minimum effort. But now I have to carry the burden, because no business can survive without digital marketing channels and I have to outsource the compliance work to ensure I don’t accidentally break the law. In comparison to pre-digital era doing any business today is more expensive and I‘d argue, it’s unnecessarily more expensive. It is not how it should have been done and it doesn’t work as expected from business point of view. Non-compliant businesses are not those who are malicious or ignorant, they can make mistakes because legislators did not help them.
1. People are doing things the “wrong” way in the first place. It’s already been established that compliance isn’t hard if you are doing things the “right” way.
2. Compliance is hard. It really isn’t if you are doing things already the right way
Ultimately GDPR is not the problem, it’s people getting into tech that either have no understanding or respect for the data of others wanting to to do business. You wouldn’t expect me to be building bridges without complying to bridge building standards would you? Why is this any different? Lives are not directly on the line here, but the consequences of being sloppy with data are still very bad. This whole paragraph puts the cart before the horse because it assumes the most important thing is that the person in question is supposed to be able to transact business, not that the most important thing is to protect the personal information of people.
I’m not expecting the plumber to be a technologist. If the plumber wants to roll his or her own technology, fine, deal with the compliance headache. I expect the plumber to instead pay someone to figure out how to build the thing properly, just like how I don’t go building load bearing structures on my home myself because I’m not a structural engineer and don’t want to spend the time learning how to do that.
This is fundamentally wrong expectation. To preserve the spirit of EU charter one does not need the law where every business engaging with customers online has to pay a compliance tax to another medieval guild of experts.
Do you practice your own medicine in the EU or do you pay someone to do it? Medical compliance is a medieval guild of experts, is it not?
This is not that. You’re making it sound like every business has to jump through all of these hoops as a matter of doing business. You know how to not be bound by GDPR? Don’t bother storing sketchy cookie data or PII. The plumber in your example could just… not do that and not have to worry about compliance. It’s only but for the plumber choosing to store that data that they opt to be bound by the regulation. It’s not a requirement for them to operate. If the business feels like they need to store the nuclear waste, then I need to know that they are storing it properly. They could just not take in and store the nuclear waste and then there’s no compliance burden. 9 times out of 10 they don’t need it to transact their business anyway, and the tenth business probably only exists but for the sketchy data.
In the end we have arrived at the same conclusion: probably the regulation itself, the baby, has some dirty bath water. Any regulatory framework of any significant complexity does, especially a landmark first of its kind in scope regulation in the world. So we should not toss both out. We should try to get rid of just the bath water.
With above said, the plumber is not absolved here. Why did they need to store my PII again? I very much value the fact that they have to think about and answer that question. So whatever improvement should just streamline that process and not get rid of it.
I already explained that most businesses are not experts in privacy and usually become non-compliant accidentally, without malicious intent. If a plumber goes to some advertisement platform to promote their services online, they are not making fully informed decision with regards to privacy implications. They buy promises of lower CACs. They do not buy the storage of PII, neither they fully understand that targeted advertisement involves storage and processing of PII. And regulation requires them to either fully understand the process or spend money on external consultant. That's stupid: GDPR moved the responsibility to protect human rights from those who aggregate a lot of data to a little guy. What really should have been done is requirement for MarTech to support "Do not track" on protocol level and risk being fined or banned from EU. It does not make sense to ask users again and again on different websites if they are ok with tracking by FancyMarTech LLC, when those users already gave the answer somewhere.
It's just one example. And then there's a case with storing PII in Google Spreadsheet: everyone does that. Nobody mentions that in their privacy policy, even if DPO is involved. And probably they should not. Regulation should also consider the public risk. If one of those millions spreadsheets with a hundred names is leaked, let's fine the owner, sure. But let's not make a big compliance process for every owner of those millions spreadsheets. Let's say: Dear Google, if you want to work in EU, you cannot share the data of EU users with NSA or anyone. Keep it safe. Figure this out, we don't care how. We really should put 99% of compliance burden on processors and spare controllers.
Your Google spreadsheets example is not, in my opinion, a good example of GDPR failure. I genuinely believe if people are dumb enough to keep PII in spreadsheets they deserve to be fined out the ass. “Everyone is doing it” is a poor justification for such risky behavior. The plumber in your example would never use the wrong pipe fittings or make dumb mistakes like that in their line of work. And if they did, they would understand that they would be on the hook for that. Why should they be absolved of responsibility in some other line of work simply because “everyone does it this way”?
Your example reminds me of HVAC technicians in the States who vent refrigerant into the atmosphere. “Everyone” does it because it’s way easier and more convenient to just do it and ignore the regulations, but the long term consequences for the environment are horrific. I’m sure if I asked those HVAC technicians they also would describe the regulations that they don’t want to abide by as onerous and not necessary.
Because they act in good faith and expect that consent is collected before their script is executed. This is usually written in their ToS, e.g. see Google Analytics. Google expects that you maintain compliance and if, because of your failure to stay compliant, they collect PII without consent, you are liable for the damages. See what happens? Every small business who wants to know something about visitors of their website is now on the hook. They are expected to understand GDPR, to understand legal details of Google ToS etc. Since you cannot avoid having digital presence today, this looks pretty much like a compliance tax.
>I genuinely believe if people are dumb enough to keep PII in spreadsheets
You are speaking about majority of population of this planet now. Everyone prepared at least once in their life a list of contacts to send wedding invitations, list of customers for a freelance job etc etc. People are not dumb. They just keep doing what they were always doing: having a sheet with a list of contacts. And honestly, they should continue, because why not? Why we should put significantly more thought in this simple task? Yes, the tools have changed and we now have implicit privacy and security risks associated with them. We should fix the tools and assign liability properly.
This is the unaddressed rub here. If the doctor commits malpractice in good faith, they’re still liable. If the structural engineer built a bridge that collapsed in good faith, they’re still liable. Why does the marketing firm get off the hook here?
The argument being presented here, that regular people should continue to be allowed to do Sloppy and Dangerous Thing, because it’s normal, is not sufficient. It also used to be normal and way easier for people to get on a plane without being strip searched and their privacy being violated. Society decided that forcing regular people to go through a ton of more hassle for safety was worth the trade off. The security is mostly theater, the implementation is burdensome, onerous and unpopular and a regular person is expected to navigate some kafkaesque nightmare with a bunch of rules and might unknowingly burn themselves. But we sure as hell don’t see a ton of plane hijackings any more, do we?
You may be surprised, but this is how this regulation is designed. Per GDPR it is the duty of controller to ensure compliance. Processor acts per instructions from controller. MarTech is not allowed to do anything outside of their contract with their users, but they are also not required to enforce consent collection, only to assist controllers with that when possible.
>The argument being presented here, that regular people should continue to be allowed to do Sloppy and Dangerous Thing
No, this is not the argument being presented here. Storing personal contacts or advertising is not "sloppy and dangerous thing" per se. The privacy risk is not that someone is processing your PII, but that this data may be used to harm you by processor or 3rd party. So the goal of regulation should not be to prevent processing, but to minimize such risks with minimal costs for society. If regulation focuses on just risk, but does not consider the costs, it must be fixed and solutions should be found that enable typical use cases.
Why not? We have that for a bunch of professions already, and for good reasons. You can't just claim to be a doctor, run a hospital or work as a electrician, you need to prove you're able to, before you can do certain things.
Engineers should already be data-aware by default, regardless of what regulations, since we do have the expertise to understand it. Then I guess the expectation was initially kind of that businesses would self-regulate, but seemingly not, so here comes the end of the cowboy developer days, if you want to build large companies that handle people's personal data at least.
> You cannot realistically expect that I have any experience with GDPR or fully understand its requirements
If you build websites where the idea is that you store people's personal data, then yes you should understand what that means and how that works. Like if someone called a plumber for a pressure problem, and the plumber says "How am I expected to understand how that works in your specific house?!", of course I expect the plumber to know their shit around their profession. If you don't understand the technology nor what rules you have to follow, then don't go into that profession.
> Non-compliant businesses are not those who are malicious or ignorant, they can make mistakes because legislators did not help them.
In my experience, the companies who had a hard time becoming compliant with GDPR were companies that either made their revenue by selling user data, and now had to make a lot of changes, or companies that were careless with data in the first place, not thinking twice about where to store things or who has access to what.
I'd be happy to see any sort of counter example of a company that A) doesn't make their revenue based on selling personal data, B) have a thoughtful architecture/design for data in the first place, together with C) had a difficult time becoming compliant with GDPR.
Most businesses in this world are not run by software engineers. Engaging with people for whatever reasons via digital channels is not a profession. I don’t really understand your point: as I said already several times, the law can and should be improved. Do you disagree with that? Do you insist that every plumber or relocation business should be an expert in GDPR?
They just introduce a needless bit of friction in the UX.
If the EU wanted to prevent digital identity triangulation or cross-domain advertising data gathering, it should have banned it outright. Rather than getting all users to click a stupid banner every time they visit a website.
That this is all a big conspiracy by nearly every company on the web against our precious overlords in the European Commission?
Consider basically any popup on a popular website which: takes over most of the screen, makes "accept" the highlighted action button, requires going through "customise" to reject, sometimes requires unchecking categories manually, puts "save and exit" and "accept all" that so the same thing next to each other, either hide or not provide "reject all", etc.
There is no conspiracy here. You can either not use third parties, or if you do, your approval system doesn't have to be obnoxious at all, but almost every page makes it a shitty experience to 1. Make you accept out of frustration. 2. Make your angry that this is asked in the first place.
I'm not sure why the government is needed to solve a problem that you've gone out of the way to inflict on yourself.
Thanks to the GDPR I cannot do this without the stupid cookie warning popup.
In this regard, the GDPR is clumsy lawmaking that results in companies having to behave defensively, hoping that users will accept a damaged UX in order that the company is not fined by the EU.
In which case, the GDPR doesnt even apply to you! Only if you collect/store PII the GDPR starts to apply!
> Thanks to the GDPR I cannot do this without the stupid cookie warning popup.
Again, the GDPR has nothing in it about cookie banners.
> the GDPR is clumsy lawmaking
It isnt, people are just complaining about it without ever actually reading it or doing much research.
Here's the key distinction: Strictly necessary cookies: No consent needed. These are required for the site to function properly (e.g., shopping cart cookies, login sessions).
Analytics cookies (including the case with a unique ID for tracking visitors): Not strictly necessary, so consent is required.
Even if the data is anonymous or pseudonymous (like a randomly generated unique ID), if the purpose is analytics and it involves storing or accessing data on the user’s device (like setting a cookie), you must ask for consent.
Again, nobody is actually reading the law here. Tech is 99% followers who blindly do whatever without understanding the motivation behind it.